What a waste of money!

[Ithaca 37]

cjcj,

What do you think about this?

"Livestock advocates suggest that water developments, such as troughs and stock ponds, benefit wildlife. While some wild animals undoubtedly use them, these facilities tend to lack adequate surrounding vegetation for hiding cover, nesting habitat, foraging, and other wildlife needs. Thus, these structures are almost useless to most wild species, and they exist at the expense of natural seeps, springs, and streams that would support far more native creatures if left intact."

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_myth_benefits.htm

 

[BigHornyRam]

Ithaca,

What do you think of this? Some wild sheep enthusiast wanted to repair a damaged guzzler for wild sheep and other wildlife a couple years ago in the Pryors. They had to battle the Wilderness Society before they could proceed with the repair. Appearently this area is under wilderness study designation, and the Wilderness Society wanted to block any man made project. Personally I think these people are opposed to anything that would enhance hunting opportunity. They were also upset that the feral horses could not access this guzzler, so hence, the big stink. At any rate the guzzler was fixed.

Paul

 

[Ithaca 37]

Paul, I know some Wilderness Society bigwigs who are hunters, and others who are not, but they're not opposed to hunting.

Sounds like that wasn't a hunting issue as much as a wilderness issue. I'm glad the guzzler project went thru.

 

[cjcj]

well at least we hunter`s get a few well maintained stock tank`s out of the deal! why get upset over a measly 128 million. when you don`t seem to care about 15 BILLION for aid`s in africa!

 

[cjcj]

well ithaca i think maybee our condition`s in arizona are a little differant ,a stock tank in this state support`s deer elk and just about everything we hunt,if it wasn`t for the stock tank`s we wouldn`t have half of the game available to hunt especially in the desert area`s where there isn`t a natural water source, in the desert water is life.

 

[Ithaca 37]

cj, I figured that was the case. Just wanted to see what you thought.

 

[Muledeer4me]

cjcj,,that's the same in many place's around here .
We have water in place's that benifit's wildlife thank's to rancher's.
Don't forget these's people don't want cow's on public land's,period.
Not in your State and not in mine.
Im suprized Ithaca didn't go on to tell you the rest of his story.

You know----is having that water worth the trade off for having cow's?
"There should be NO Grazing in those dry States anyway because it wont support grazing (not enough water)."

I see it as a benifit,Being able to bring water (and wildlife)into place's that otherwise wouldn't have it.
If the tank's are so bad for wildlife,I wonder how all those track's get there.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I seriously question, in Idaho, the net value of having stock tanks for cows and the benefit to wildlife. Most of the springs that are dug out and piped to stock tanks would naturally support the wildlife there. And the only reason the improvements are made is so the cows can get their drink.

I know of Welfare Ranchers who go up and cut the Junipers on the BLM land that are near the springs, so the water will flow down to their ranch/private property. They claim to do it under their "water right", that they have, and when they got the right, the Junipers weren't there.

Kick the welfare ranchers off the lands of Idaho, and the water will improve, the game will improve, and I'll have more stuf to kill

 

[Ithaca 37]

Complete uninformed, unobserving BS about stock tanks benefitting wildlife in Idaho. They're a disaster and we'd be much better off without them (if the cattle were fenced out of the springs and seeps). Most of the time they divert the water to the tank and the overflow pipe goes underground to the next downhill tank and they have dried up miles of riparian habitat that way. Anyone who looks at the situation around stock tanks can figure that out, unless they're an ignoranus.

Most stock tanks are trashed for at least a fifty yard radius. If young birds and animals even try to get to the stock tank in hopes of being able to drink a little water that might be leaking out they're a sitting duck for predators.

Stock tanks in Idaho cause a net loss of wildlife.

"We have water in place's that benifit's wildlife thank's to rancher's." And don't bother thanking the ranchers. Who do you think paid for those tanks?

PS The water was already there.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-07-2003 09:11: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Oak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I see it as a benifit,Being able to bring water (and wildlife)into place's that otherwise wouldn't have it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This topic actually got me to thinking about that point MD just made. How do the rest of you feel about this?

My opinion (after thinking about this for a few minutes): I think it's a little dangerous to change a particular habitat for the benefit of one or two species. I'm not talking about restoring habitat to it's original state, but rather changing the habitat to suit a couple of desireable species. Examples: Is it really a good idea to create previously unavailable water sources in a desert environment just because we want the area to support more elk or chukars or bighorn sheep? These areas evolved without water, and therefore aren't designed to support large numbers of ungulates. Also, I don't think that it's a good idea to chop up shortgrass prairie by adding cover habitat, just because we want more pheasants or quail or rabbits to hunt.

What do you all think? I'm sure you'll have fun blasting away at me...it's not a very popular view among most hunters.

Oak

 

[JoseCuervo]

Oak,

Sorry to dissappoint you, but I think I agree with you. There are ALWAYS unintened consequences when you mess with Mother Nature. Sometimes they are good, but usually they are just going to cause another, unforseen, problem.

I think the Idaho Turkey projects are generally seen as a good thing, but I know some of the ranchers are beginning to get tired of the birds. In Idaho, the introductions of Chukar and Phesants are good, but I sometimes wonder about the fish we introduce, and then have a new ecosystem in a lake/drainage.

In any event, you are tinkering with a pretty delicate balance, and sometimes, changing a system may result in an upset to the system.

 

[cjcj]

it` appear`s that each state has it`s unique set of differance`s for water usage. and maybee hunter`s/sportsman need more clout with the legislator`s in each state, i know cattle is big money and the rancher`s have the power, and they use it to their advantage,and while i do like the fact that stock tank`s are good for wildlife,i think the same stock tank`s could be built/maintained by G&F BLM FOREST SERVICE etc.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ideally, every seep or spring should be natural with a fence around it, maybe at least a half acre, with water flowing out of the area in a way that big game can always get some. Cows should be kept out of all riparian zones, except maybe a fifty yard stretch every half mile or so. The problem is giving access to big game but keeping cows out of the water as much as possible. Stock tanks far from the riparian zone would be good. Welfare ranchers don't like to see any water flowing down streams because they think it's wasted (some of it might evaporate). They think it should be captured in a piping system that flows underground from one stock tank to another. The hell with riparian zones and wildlife.

I really wouldn't be too worried about cows if the was a riparian zone fenced off along every waterway. The zone should be at least 50 yards wide. There could be a gap about every couple hundred yards for people and cows to walk thru to cross the stream. The bottom strand of the fence should be high enough so most hunting dogs won't tear up their back when they run under it. People could climb over or under the fence wherever they want.

That would solve most of the problem and wildlife populations would explode.

The net loss to cows would be about one acre for every hundred yards of stream. Very little, actually, but the welfare ranchers would whine and cry like spoiled babies.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-07-2003 23:12: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[1_pointer]

Keeping all cows out of all riparian areas would not work. 1. The fencing is to expensive to build and maintain. 2. I know of no cow proof, wildlife exempt fence. 3. Cow can be a great tool to rehabilitate some riparian areas.

1&2 can be avoided using training of the herd and riders.

3 takes ingenuity and smart management, which all to often is hampered in one form or another.


CO- Your right, many of these drier areas in the Intermountain West did not evolve with large amounts of ungulates present. Altering the environment to do so can lead to fast degradation of the environment. Yes, it's true even wild animals can and do overgraze.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-08-2003 12:07: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>

 

[Lostagain]

Those are all good points.... there is a time and a place where livestock grazing benefits the enviro. There is also places they shouldn't be.
But before I will support removing the current system, there has to be a system installed to benefit the enviro thru livestock grazing. It would be very stupid to agree with removing the livestock without assurances that the ones needed would be returned.
Which wackos would agree to such a thing and then just double cross everyone as soon as ya got the livestock removed? I believe IT and marvel would. And the livestock would never return. Just like you want right IT?

 

[Ithaca 37]

LA, If you'd ever paid attention you'd have noticed I'm not against all grazing. I've said it about a thousand times.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I will state that NO WELFARE RANCHING is acceptable, and there is no need for grazing public lands with private animals.

Now I am open minded, and am willing to listen to 1-Pointer or Ithica, or somebody as equally smart

convince me otherwise. But at this point, I don't see the NEED for any grazing of public lands. (I am 100% in support of raising cattle on private grounds, as I do it.)

The problem with a limit, is that you soon get into cases like the new fire management policy, where we can log the "transition" areas to reduce fire to structures. Kind of like the 20 miles from the structure, is in the acceptable zone... Or like the Whaling limits, where Japan kills hundreds of whales (I think it is 200 or so) for "scientific research", and then when I go to a fancy restruant in Japan, I am served their "scientific research".

er

 

[BigHornyRam]

Gunner,

Take away the cows summer range and the cattlemen may decide to take away the wildlife's winter range. Both narrow minded, extremist ideas. And don't be pitching your empty beer cans on the side of any roads around my house. If I catch you, I'll use your head for a can crusher. The problem with the soft headed Idaho can crushers, is that after a couple hundred cans, they wear out, and you have to get a new one.

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 05-09-2003 06:32: Message edited by: Paul C ]</font>

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I will state that NO WELFARE RANCHING is acceptable, and there is no need for grazing public lands with private animals. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So we need to open up another government program and start public cattle ranches...LOL...

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paul,

How come I don't have a right to throw my beer cans on public lands, right of ways, around you? Are you advocating the limiting of my rights to use public land, in a manner that I enjoy?

Do I not have a right to continue the lifestyle my father and Grandfather did, and throw beer cans out the window?

That sounds like an Extreme Environmental position.

And I understand your point on the ranchers and winter range. Yes, most of the good Winter range is private, and so now there are some efforts to buy easements or the land up. In Idaho, the Legislature keeps trying to prevent F&G from buying land for wildlife, under some sort of fear of the Government owning something. RMEF is having trouble getting land, and giving it to F&G, I believe.

Also in Idaho, we hunters have to pay $$$ to a Depradation account, so the F&G can give the money to Farmers for mitigation of damages from wildlife. And the bad part is these wildlife are owned by all the citizens of the State, but just the hunters have to pay the farmers for the damages.

Cheers,

er