State of Idaho Neglecting Kids for the Benefit of Cows

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, "My other point I want to make is that the people who oppose grazing on public land also oppose grazing on private land."

Can you name any groups that oppose grazing on private land?

"the people who a grazing these lands are going to dig in and fight back."

Lettem' fight all they want. The law is on Marvel's side, he just has to force state and feds to enforce it. That's what he's successfully doing.

It's real simple. If ranchers and the state and feds didn't break the law Marvel wouldn't have to sue them. If they don't like being sued all they have to do is obey the law.

 

[Nemont]

IT,
You are wrong to say this.

If they don't like being sued all they have to do is obey the law.

You may want to go back and re-read Jon Marvel's stated goals. End public land grazing period. No compromise, regardless even if the law is followed. After the lawsuit's will come the harassment of "law abiding" grazing. Why? because the "hooved locust" still eat one blade of grass a jack rabbit might need.

I have no problem with him bidding and winning leases. That should be anyone's right to bid on public lands. It is his main goal of destroying public lands grazing that makes no sense to me.

I know I can talk until I am blue in the face to some on this board, not all, about family ranches and public lands grazing and not change anyones preconcieved notions about the issue. I do not believe anyone is guaranteed a right to a living or even a way of life. What I do believe is that if a rancher is doing it correctly and grazing within the laws then he or she should be left alone. That is not what the stated goals and driving force behind the WWP and Jon Marvel are.

Also all of you may need to look into the way public lands are grazed in other areas. Not all use the land in the same way as in Idaho.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont said, "Also all of you may need to look into the way public lands are grazed in other areas. Not all use the land in the same way as in Idaho."

Nemont,

I've inventoried BLM leases in S. Dakota, N. Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. There isnt much difference in the rates of over-grazing in any of the states. I found about what the BLM claims, about 60% were in poor condition.

I've also done inventory work, though not specifically range work, in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona on various ownerships...state, blm, fs. Again, rates of over-grazing are similar...over half are over-grazed and/or in poor condition.

I couldnt honestly say one state is any better or worse than any other.

 

[1_pointer]

Yes, as it refers to his lawsuits against the State Land Board....

With that qualifier, I'd say you're right.

Buzz- Would you be willing to hazard a guess as to what percentage were over grazed, say 30yrs before you inventoried them?

**I just want it made clear that I am not an apologist for bad grazing practices. I also believe the stated percentages are fairly accurate. I also believe that is better now than before and is getting better everyday. Range management is a relatively new science and many of the public rangelands today have only been seeing better management for the last 20yrs or so. Many of these areas take much longer than that to show appreciable improvement.

 

[BuzzH]

Pointer,

Thats a good question, and one not easily answered without previous existing data, which there is a serious lack of.

Also, as you know, over-grazing doesnt usually cause a serious decline in over-all range health quickly, its usually a progressive problem. Which is why most people dont really recognize over-grazing, let alone knowing how to fix it. To many people, things have "always been that way" and "if its green, its healthy", which you know is a common misconception in range, riparian, and forest health. Theres more to it than that.

I'd say, based just on that, in most cases the range health may not have been as bad 30 years ago, but there probably were some serious indicators that the range was in decline.

Also, to be fair, and I stated this in many documents, reports, etc. that its hard to tell for sure if the area you're looking at is still DECLINING or actually IMPROVING (in particular when grazing is still happening). Again, its not having the ability to flash back 5-50 years to see what was going on then, you only see whats going on NOW. So, you use indicators of range health to make your best assessment. In some cases it was pretty easy to see that a range was either improving or in decline...other times it wasnt.

Thats really the value in inventory work, being able to track change over time. Unfortunately, the BLM, FS, etc. werent real consistant with data collection methods in the past.

Thats a long answer to I DONT REALLY KNOW, but I'd guess there has been over-grazing problems for a very long time, its to what extent though, thats hard to tell.

That probably didnt do anything to answer your question, sorry about that, I just dont have all the answers.

 

[Ten Bears]

The point I see being ignored here is the question I asked earlier about grazing. If grazing is a prescribed activity in order to get the lease, and Marvel doesn't put grazing into his bid, then his bid isn't valid. These are grazing leases, not let it grow leases.

 

[Bambistew]

I DON'T KNOW... I can't belive you said that Buzz... Are you feeling ok?

 

[pawclaws]

Good discussion gentlemen. Buzz would not it be beneficial to capture the thermographic images of the land in question via sattelite at least annually? It would seem that the approach needed to handle Mr. Marvel would be a class action suit of the losing bidders naming Mr. Marvel and the land owner as well.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paws,

Why on earth would anyone want to "handle" Mr Marvel? He is trying to improve our hunting and fishing, make sure the school kids of Idaho get the maximum amount of money from state lands. And you think you can sue him?

Taking Marvel on in court is the DUMBEST comment I have ever heard. Talk about your "frivolous" lawuits... Are you that anti-Hunting, anti-fishing that you think we need to "handle" Marvel?

 

[pawclaws]

I'm not an interested bidder EG. Others apparently are and my perception is they are being frustrated by what appear to be less than ethical practices on Mr. Marvels part.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by pawclaws:
I'm not an interested bidder EG. Others apparently are and my perception is they are being frustrated by what appear to be less than ethical practices on Mr. Marvels part.

Please explain what "less than ethical practices" you are charging Mr. Marvel with. It is funny that the Judges all agree with Jon, but some old guy in Ohio has more Wisdom, and can see un-ethical behaviour that the Judges aren't able to see.

The bottom line is, Marvel outbids the Rancher, and now you advocate the ranchers sue Marvel. Boy, I bet Ebay doesn't want you organzing all their losing bidders into sueing the winning bidders.

But, we await your explanations of the "unethical behavior".... Or is this another one of your statments with no foundation, no background, and no facts????

And furthermore, why would YOU be against Marvel?

 

[pawclaws]

I believe that casting a bid in accordance with less than all the governing rules would qualify as an unethical practice.

 

[pawclaws]

EG; what part of Canada are you originally from?
Are you a naturalized US citizen or a resident alien?

 

[1_pointer]

Paws- Permittees (Marvel in this case) can take non-use (ie no grazing) for five years before the permit would be revoked. Even then, only a small portion of the AUMs have to be grazed for the permit to stay valid. Any and all public lands ranchers have that ability. In addition, thermographic imagery is nice, but much of rangeland health is dependent on species composition and ID, both of which are near impossible from a satellite. Remote sensing is a great tool, but is far from a magic bullet.

Buzz-
I agree, one can't determine trend with only one data point in time. Many times this is done by comparing to what 'should' be there according to the NRCS soil survey. My problem with this the range site descriptions are based on Clementsian succession, which has been shown to not be very effective on arid/semi-arid systems. So, were now back to needing repeated data points. Which as you stated aren't always worth much do to change in methods or lack of data. One thing that makes me think it was worse 'back in the day' was just the amount of AUMs permitted were much higher and well designed grazing systems were non-existant. However, one offsetting thing in contrast with this is the introduction of non-natives in recent decades. Even with the presence of things like cheatgrass, spurge, knapweed, etc, I still believe the ranges are in better condition now than 30yrs ago. This may (or may not) be a reason why we have fewer mule deer now than then. An interesting positive correlation is seen between the AUMs permitted by the fed agencies 30yrs ago to now and mule deer populations 30yrs ago to know. The curves look pretty similar.

Though I agree there is a large amount of rangelands in less than good condition, I believe it's getting better.

 

[Rogue 6]

Is there any data on what grazing lands looked like when the great buffalo herds roamed the high plains?

 

[1_pointer]

Rogue- Only anecdotal evidence as science was not too profitable of a gig then. Also, you have the problem that there is a growing amount of evidence/literature that the 'great buffalo herds' were un-natural and a one time thing. The theory gaining the most acceptance is that as much as 95% of the Amerindians were killed off by European diseases. The vaccuum left by the drastic drop in hunting pressure by the Amerindians then led to a population explosion of the buffalo, pronghorn, elk, etc. Thus, the huge herds noted by the early pioneers were a recent phenomena and not like the previous 10K years.

 

[pawclaws]

Thanks 1-Pointer that helps. Rogue 6; excellent question! Black and fuzzy would be my guess!! Seriously though, you know a lot could be learned by reconstructing herd movements, kill rates, etc if that kind of thing might be found. I know that the buffalo hunters trading hides and bones did keep records but where they might be found, not a clue.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by pawclaws:
I believe that casting a bid in accordance with less than all the governing rules would qualify as an unethical practice.

Paws,

Can you explain more on the "unethical practices" you are charging Mr. Marvel with? You are the first person to ever make these charges. Others have charged with "uncivilized, abrasive, etc..". but not "unethical". Or is this one of your baseless statments that you like to throw around, with no foundation, facts, or knowledge?

Are you that ignorant to think that the State Land Board does not go over Marvel's applications with a fine tooth comb, looking for "t"s not crossed, and "i"s not dotted? I assure you, nobody's application is scrutinized more carefully than Marvel's.

And again, why would YOU be opposed to Marvel's goals, unless you are an Anti-Hunter?

Oh, yeah, and to answer your other question, South of Calgary.

 

[pawclaws]

That only answers half the question.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paws,

Always funny when you avoid questions, after you get caught spouting off about something you have no clue about. Why do you think you get no respect, when you can't explain your comments?

Again, and I'll type slowly, What has Marvel done that is unethical? And, why do YOU oppose Marvel's goals?