GREEN LAND GRABBERS

1_pointer

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2000
Messages
18,108
Location
Indiana
You know that off. What was $2.50 in the 50's after the war boon!!! 'Cmon, admit it, they didn't buy because they did think anyone but ranchers would ever value it for anything and they'd get to use it for a pittance without having to pay property taxes!!! Hunting ground, which is a leisure activity to most, is different than investing into land you are using for a livelihood. But, now that other people value that land for something other than for grazing and want it managed as such they don't like it!
 

Muledeer4me

New member
Joined
Dec 11, 2000
Messages
1,597
Location
Idaho
Take some time and read this.
Notice some of the word's that this guy uses and the tactacs he uses to run people off not only public land but there own land.
Is that really the type of person you would support?

(Stick's out his tongue,calls people name's ,call's them liar's?) Hummmmmmm sound like anything you have seen before?






( FEATURE ARTICLE - August 2, 1999
Jon Marvel vs. the Marlboro Man
by Stephen Stuebner

SILVER CITY, Idaho - Imagine a silver-haired 52-year-old fellow walking into a saloon in this remote mountain town in the 1920s.

He slams open the saloon’s swinging doors and says, "All right, who owns those cows sprawled in the middle of Jordan Creek? Jordan Creek is full of crap and I want those cows out! Now!’


Imagine the response. A couple of cowboys at a corner table would slowly rise out of their chairs, rub the bone-chiseled grips of their six-shooters and stare at the man named Jon Marvel. "Let’s settle this outside," they’d say.


Maybe they’d soak him in a water trough. If he were lucky.


But it’s 1999, not the 1920s. And Jonathan Marvel, a successful architect from Hailey, Idaho, is not afraid to attack what he calls the West’s sacred cows.


He has proudly worn a button that urges "End welfare ranching," and he targets ranchers who use federal land as well as Idaho state land, along with both the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service - in Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. More than a few ranchers probably wish they could settle things the old-fashioned way.


"He’s an arrogant, ignorant asshole," says Jay Cox, an Owyhee County, Idaho, rancher.


"Out here in Castle Creek, the BLM is cutting cattle numbers and they’re trying to fence every mile of the stream. They cut me back to the point where I’m losing $28,000 a year. And Marvel ... he just smiles and laughs," Cox says.


Even some of Marvel’s friends marvel at the chutzpah of this anti-grazing activist who has found new ways to attack the state and federal permits that public-land ranchers say they need to survive.


One friend, who requested anonymity, called him "Slobodan Marvel," playing off the name of the Serbian murderer and ethnic-cleanser, Slobodan Milosevic. "He’s easy to hate," he adds, "but you have to admire his guts and sense of humor."


The agriculture weekly Capital Press, based in Salem, Ore., interviewed Marvel on June 18, and concluded that while he was "more up-front than usual," he was also "immune to reason."


Its editorial concluded: "We have the impression that he harbors a rage against public-lands grazing, and any amount of reasoning, analyses or demonstration projects are unlikely to make a difference with him."


A slow, deliberate talker, Marvel says his aim is to stop the environmental damage caused by livestock on public lands, focusing on critical fish and wildlife habitat along rivers and streams. Hence the name of the nonprofit group he began six years ago - Idaho Watersheds Project.


His solution: "Destabilize" the livestock industry to the point where ranchers get so mad and miserable that they quit the business.


"We’re creating biological deserts in areas that should be exuberant with life," Marvel says. "If the land could talk, it’d be crying."


Marvel takes a no-compromise position because ranchers, in his view, refuse to improve stewardship, and state and federal politics are rigged in their favor.


"I’m painted as an extremist radical who’s trying to undermine their way of life, and some of them call me a communist," he says. "Well, the great irony, of course, is that the system of public-lands ranching is a communist system. It’s a command-and-control system. Outsiders cannot participate. There’s no democracy. There’s no free market. There’s no competition allowed. They’re in charge."


Criticism of cattle, of course, is nothing new. For the last decade, federal government studies have documented the damage cattle do to arid public lands, endangered fish and streams and rivers.


Marvel is making a bigger splash than previous crusades, such as "Cattle Free by "93," because he’s discovered highly effective ways to attack ranchers. His arsenal runs the gamut and includes bidding on state grazing leases, suing state and federal agencies, filing endangered species petitions, appealing grazing plans and mounting anti-cow cartoons on highway billboards.


He gets headlines by attacking wealthy and well-known public-land permittees, such as the Hewlett Packard-leased San Felipe Allotment near Mackay, Idaho, and billionaire potato king J.R. Simplot’s extensive grazing leases in southern Idaho.


Marvel mocks federal grazing fees - $1.35 per cow-calf pair per month in 1999 - by comparing them to the cost of feeding a pet hamster. That, he estimates, is $3 per month, while feeding a pet tarantula a month’s supply of crickets costs $4.75.


"It’s absurd," he rails. He’s fond of calling ranchers names like "welfare queens’ and "champion whiners." The in-your-face, brazen style has earned Marvel a foul reputation.


"It’s a scorched-earth policy," says state Sen. Laird Noh, a Kimberly sheep rancher, Nature Conservancy board member, and chairman of the Senate Resources and Environment Committee.


"He’s trying to trade one use of the land that can be environmentally compatible for another use that will lead to ranchettes, pavement and subdivisions, all of which can’t be reversed," Noh says.
Falling in love with the West


Marvel’s first trip to Idaho was in 1959, when he was 12, and it changed his life.


"I loved it. I don’t see how anybody who came here wouldn’t like it," he says. "The open spaces, the beautiful mountain vistas, beautiful rivers ... I hiked in the Sawtooths every week I was here."


In 1962, Jon Marvel’s family purchased a small cabin in a shady grove of lodgepole pine near Stanley, Idaho, next to the towering Sawtooth Mountains. As Marvel grew up in Wilmington, Del., his family often traveled to the 21-acre former ranch during the summer.


Marvel earned a bachelor’s degree in American history from the University of Chicago, and, hoping to settle in the Northwest, he went on to the University of Oregon in Eugene to earn a master’s degree in architecture.


In 1976, he became a full-time Idaho resident and began his career as an architect. As the world-class Sun Valley Resort drew more people to the Wood River Valley, palatial homes and condominiums sprouted in Ketchum, Sun Valley and points south. Marvel started his own architectural firm in Hailey in 1981, specializing in residences, and in remodeling and public projects for the Blaine County schools, the Wood River Hospital and the Blaine County Senior Center.
"I have not done a large number of huge houses," Marvel says. "The largest house I’ve designed was 7,000 square feet. I’m not involved in designing homes at the hyper-exclusive scale."


Marvel says it was while living at his family’s cabin in Stanley that he began to see cattle from the perspective of a small landowner.


"Cows would break into our property because there was nothing left on the other side for them to eat," Marvel says. "When we asked the ranchers to move the cows or help with the fence, they’d just ignore us. I observed an arrogant, unresponsive and unneighborly attitude."


It was a quick education about open-range law in the West. Ranchers aren’t required to fence their cows in; adjacent property owners must fence cows out.


Marvel says he couldn’t help noticing how cattle overgrazed streambanks until they left nothing but dirt. He took pictures of animals defecating in clean, mountain-spring water.


Through the years, he says, his complaints to the Forest Service went unanswered. By the early 1990s, he’d had enough.


"I’ve always had a strong revulsion to public-lands pillage," he says. "I decided to get more active."


Marvel seized on the novel concept of bidding on state grazing leases, something anti-grazing environmentalists had never tried before. Marvel raised private cash and began to bid for land.


He knew that the Idaho Constitution required the Idaho Land Board to raise maximum income on state leases for public schools. So, he assumed, if two parties competed for a lease, the state would hold an auction and the highest bid would win.


But the system favored ranchers - always.


"One thing I think ranchers understand is money," Marvel says. "If we can go in and embarrass them or outbid them, this is a no-lose situation. Even if we lose the auction, we raise more money for the schoolchildren."


Since Marvel made his first bid on state lands in 1994, a variety of groups have followed suit, bidding on state lands in Utah, Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona and Nebraska.


But very quickly, Marvel hit a brick wall in Idaho. The five-member Land Board, composed of the Idaho governor, attorney general, controller, superintendent of schools and secretary of state, was so appalled at the notion of leasing land to an environmentalist that it crafted a law to block him from bidding. Marvel then sued the board, thanks to the efforts of Laird Lucas of the nonprofit Land and Water Fund.


This time, Marvel scored a bull’s eye. Last April, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled 5-0 that the board could not set up a system of "qualified bidders’ that explicitly ruled out non-ranchers such as Marvel. The state’s so-called "anti-Marvel" bill was thus ruled unconstitutional.


Justices ordered the state Land Board to hold 26 auctions this summer to give Marvel a chance to bid on the 1995-’96 contested leases. Marvel says he’ll target the San Felipe state lease, leases held by John Faulkner, who ranches on a large scale, and Simplot’s leases. Simplot runs the biggest feedlot in the United States, with a capacity of 450,000 head per year.
"It’s just nuclearized’


A narrow dirt road winds up a gentle mountain slope onto the Owyhee Plateau, where Marvel wants to check on the Castle Creek Allotment, a 200,000-acre area managed by the BLM.


"Look at this shithole," he says, pointing at a portion of Poison Creek.


"God, it’s just nuclearized."


He moans as he looks at streambanks grazed down to dirt. The streambed is caked with mud dented by hundreds of cow hoofprints. "Oooooh," he says, wrinkling his nose, "can you believe the smell?"


Marvel says he and his fellow monitors, Gene Bray and Katie Fite, see these kinds of scenes all too often. They take pictures and ask the BLM to do something about it.


Marvel and other volunteers know that the BLM’s skeleton crew of biologists and range conservationists can’t keep constant watch over millions of acres of public land, so he and a handful of other monitors think of themselves as scouts for the agency.


"It’s caused a singular change in attitude for agency managers to know they’re being watched," Marvel says.


Fite and Bray have discovered dead birds and squirrels drowned in a poorly installed cattle trough. "This is what happens out there if people aren’t watching," Fite says.


"Look at the tremendous taxpayer subsidy here," Marvel says. "It’d be a lot cheaper to just remove the cattle."


At a high point in the road, Marvel unfurls his master BLM map of Idaho’s Owyhee Plateau. He lays the yellow map on the hood of the truck, and points out the boundaries of the Castle Creek Allotment. The map is inked up with the names of ranchers who run cattle here, as well as allotments on the west side of the plateau.


Looking off to a broad expanse of rolling green hills and thick groves of mountain mahogany, Marvel takes time to express amazement at the success of his 900-member group.


The Idaho Watersheds Project sued the BLM to improve this allotment, settling the case after the BLM agreed to reduce grazing 23 percent. The agency also agreed to fence 15 miles of streams, heal riparian areas and possibly boost redband trout populations.


"This was a real compromise," says Lucas of the LAW Fund. "It proves that Jon can be reasonable."


Lucas doubts the compromise will result in a long-term environmental fix, especially since one permittee has appealed. "That case was a real lesson to us. Negotiations don’t get you where you want to go in the long term," Lucas says.


The project will cost a total of $221,800, Marvel points out, yet Castle Creek’s eight permittees will pay only $23,310 in grazing fees in 1999.
The letter of the law


About 50 air miles to the west from the Castle Creek Allotment, Marvel and Lucas broadened their scope. They took aim at 68 ranching permits that the BLM had renewed for 10 years with only cursory environmental review. The agency ignored guidelines passed by the Interior Department in 1995 that required it to conduct a detailed review of streams and rangelands.


Instead, a BLM manager signed a one-page checklist, saying a 1981 environmental impact statement provided an adequate analysis.
"We didn’t have clear direction within the agency on how to handle the new policy at the time," explains Barry Rose, BLM spokesman.


Last March, U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill ruled that the permits were renewed illegally. As a solution, Marvel asked the judge to halt all 68 permits until ranchers came into environmental compliance.


If Judge Winmill had agreed with Marvel, 17,000 cows would have been homeless this summer - kicked off federal land.


On June 2, about 30 Owyhee County ranchers packed a federal courtroom in Boise, along with Marvel and his supporters.


Ranchers heaved a collective sigh of relief when Judge Winmill said he would not shut down grazing this summer. But Lucas argued that a timeline should be set for the BLM to conduct environmental reviews, and specific restrictions should be imposed in the interim to protect redband trout, riparian areas and sage grouse.


The outcome is still pending.


As an end run against an unfavorable court decision, Idaho’s two Republican senators recently placed a rider on a year-2000 appropriations bill that would relax BLM deadlines for examining expiring grazing permits.


Still, for Marvel, the legal decision was a stunning near-victory over a way of life in the West that had been unquestioned for decades: Ranchers raising hay on private land, then sending their cows onto public land to graze on the rich summer grasses.
An angry man


When Marvel began his nonprofit Idaho Watersheds Project, it was clear that he harbored a monumental grudge. In the fall of 1994, Marvel attended a grazing fee meeting in Park City, Utah, and proceeded to call all the ranchers and agency people in the room "categorical liars."


"Does that include me?" asked moderator Bob Armstrong, assistant secretary for the Department of the Interior.


Marvel didn’t flinch: "Yes, that includes you."


Before Armstrong could say anything, everyone in the room turned on Marvel, expressing their outrage. He later apologized.


But he probably wasn’t very sorry. He admits that his brash approach to dealing with politicians and agency officials is intentional. He says he figures he won’t change federal and state grazing policy by being Mr. Nice Guy.


Marvel’s attitude, however, can be so alienating that he hurts his cause. In a 1995 Land Board meeting, he stuck out his tongue at Idaho Controller J.D. Williams when he was denied the right to bid on a grazing lease.


Marvel continues to shout insults at federal agency staffers across a room or he calls them names on the phone, several sources say. On the other hand, he also has spies in the agencies who help him.


"He may burn more bridges than he crosses," says Armstrong, who recently retired to Austin, Texas. "He does that at some peril if he hopes to make things happen."


Johanna Wald, a San Francisco-based attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, thinks Marvel should be commended for being bold.


"I’m impressed by his willingness to speak forthrightly," Wald says. "I think he’s having quite a huge impact. There are a bunch of other groups that have tried to do what Jon’s been doing for years; they haven’t gotten very far."


If Marvel’s crusade works, he expects scores of ranchers to quit the business. When they’re close to the breaking point, he predicts the federal government may try to buy them out.


"The only way it will happen, is if they feel sufficiently at risk," he says. "And there’s lots of ways to do that."
Talk of a class war


Marvel’s activities have sent cold waves of fear across the rural landscape that may strengthen - rather than weaken - the resolve of his opponents.


"Mark this, Jon Marvel. There is great passion out here on the land. And in that, you have met your match," says Diane Josephy Peavey, a Blaine County poet and HCN board member whose husband, John Peavey, is a large-scale sheep rancher.


"Here is a resort-community architect attacking rural family ranchers," adds Josephy Peavey. "Driving ranchers off the land is an arrogant approach that won’t do anything but drive a bigger wedge between environmentalists and ranchers."


Rancher Jay Cox’s response to Marvel is to punish everybody. He locks his gates and prevents public access to 20 square miles.


"It’s about the only thing we can do," Cox says.


From a political perspective, Marvel’s crusade scores points among many environmentalists in liberal pockets of Idaho in Sun Valley and Boise. Yet state Sen. Noh says a poll by the Idaho Rangelands Resources Commission found that 70 percent of Idaho voters support livestock grazing on public lands.


"That’s given some heart to people in the livestock industry," he says.


Tom Hook, an Owyhee County rancher whose grazing permit was at risk in the recent BLM case, says, "We’re not afraid of what’s going on out here on the land. We think things are improving. We can defend ourselves."


For now, watch for Marvel and Laird Lucas to file more lawsuits, bid on state leases, push to get diminishing species protected, appeal grazing plans, and "hassle the BLM and the Forest Service unmercifully," as Marvel puts it, until the agencies protect public lands as the highest priority.")
 

dgibson

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2001
Messages
1,671
Location
Henderson, KY
Holy smokes, MD, that's gotta be your longest post yet!
wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sen. Laird Noh, a Kimberly sheep rancher, Nature Conservancy board member, and chairman of the Senate Resources and Environment Committee.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whooda? How can this be? I thought the two were mutually exclusive. What type of devilry is this?
confused.gif
hump.gif
wink.gif
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
14,090
Location
Laramie, WY
I didnt know a lot about Marvel until I just read that article. I like his style.

As long as he stays within the law, I say go for it. He has every legal right, along with everyone else, to pursue whatever mission he wants.

It sounds to me like they hate him because he wins lawsuits and makes people comply with existing law. How dare he.
 

Ithaca 37

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
5,427
Location
Home of the free, Land of the brave
Buzz, That's exactly why some people hate Marvel. He's exposed all the lies and myths about public land ranching and he's forcing many people---not just ranchers, but politicians and gummint agencies---to obey the law. Lot's of people have been getting away with ignoring the law for too long----much to the detriment of our hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities. They not only ignore the law, they have taken advantage of school children and all taxpayers.

Marvel has called them out and he's winning almost all of his battles, even when the deck is stacked against him.

Someone here in SI said, not long ago, that Marvel doesn't go after the big boys because he's afraid of them! That's the kind of lies people make up about Marvel!!
 

Washington Hunter

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
4,010
Location
Rochester, Washington
Sounds like Marvel is getting done what needs to be done. I don't see how anybody can disagree with what he is doing.
confused.gif
What is wrong with forcing ranchers and the government to follow the law? Does Marvel accept donations and if so where do I send my money?
 

Ithaca 37

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
5,427
Location
Home of the free, Land of the brave
Here's lotsa good information at Marvel's web site:

http://www.westernwatersheds.org/

Like this:
"The state of Idaho owns 2.5 million acres of land given to the state in 1890 at statehood by the federal government. These lands are to be managed for the benefit of the endowments to which they are dedicated. In Idaho's case about 85% of these lands are dedicated to the public school endowment fund and all income from them goes to that fund.

In southern Idaho about 1,900,000 acres of these lands are leased to public lands ranchers at a rate which averages out to about 50 cents per acre per year. About $900,000 per year is generated by these leases. It costs the state about $800,000 to administer the grazing leases each year. The very modest return left to the schools is undermined by the degradation caused to much of the lands and watersheds leased to ranchers due to mismanagement of livestock on the school lands. These lands provide only 1.5% of the forage requirements of beef livestock in Idaho every year."

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-09-2003 21:36: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>
 

sdgunslinger

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
65
Location
Gary , SD
Some of you people are forgetting one important item . These public lands ranchers have vested property rights on their grazing allotments . You buy or sell these rights , and you can mortgage them . Here is one case of a green landgrab and the court battles ensuing :

http://www.stewardsoftherange.org/news.htm

http://www.npri.org/issues/issues02/hage_wins_big.htm

You can bet your bottom dollar Marvel would not be proposing buyouts if he thought he could just legally steal the allotments in all cases .

1 pointer

You should be glad those ranchers back in the 50 s didn't buy out those BLM acres for $2.50 . If they had there wouldn't be much of a grazing fight going on now , would there . You also wouldn't have free access to those acres for hunting .

$2.50 per acre may sound cheap these days , but it wasn't back in the 50's . Cattle were only worth around fifteen cents/lb . 40000 acres grazing ,a modest sized spread in the intermountain areas , would have cost $100000. That was big money to pay for land back in the Fifties............

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-10-2003 07:06: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]</font>
 

Muledeer4me

New member
Joined
Dec 11, 2000
Messages
1,597
Location
Idaho
sdgunslinger,good post.
People need to be real carefull what they wish for.
Good Links ,long but well worth reading through to get an idea what these people are up against.I really like this quote .


"When I hear people ask if this is a case about grazing, I always have to chuckle. It is about grazing as much as environmentalism is about protecting the environment. There is a much larger precedent involved. Hage v. United States is about Americans regaining control of their land and liberty."

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-10-2003 09:32: Message edited by: Muledeer4me ]</font>
 

MarlandS

New member
Joined
Jan 8, 2001
Messages
519
Location
Ellsworth, IL, U.S.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dgibson:
Yeah, Mars, how many small-timers has your corporation forced off their land lately?
wink.gif
biggrin.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Define lately.........
 

1_pointer

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2000
Messages
18,108
Location
Indiana
SD- My wish is not they would've bought it, but that they bitch about the change of management of something they don't own! But, you did make my point, that they could have and thus not had any problems. So, even if they were there since the 1800's doesn't matter to me if the federal lands need more protection.

I don't agree with everything about Marvel, but do agree with him making those using federal lands accountable to the laws/rules controlling such. He's just doing what this country was set up to do, IMO. A citizen has the right to challenge even a government agency if they aren't doing the job their supposed to.

I guess I forgot about the '50's being like the '30's. Didn't realize the materials or money available to post-war Americans was not real. Guess the growth of America after the war has nothing to do with McDonald's now being a household name. Granted $2.50 was worth more then than now, but it's never been all THAT much.
 

Ithaca 37

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
5,427
Location
Home of the free, Land of the brave
The reason most ranchers didn't buy the BLM land when they had a chance was because they couldn't imagine anyone else ever wanting it for anything and they had full use of it for free. If it went up for sale tomorrow at the current market price they'd probably buy it.
 

ELKCHSR

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
13,765
Location
Montana
You all are missing a good point here on why the ranchers didn't buy the land in the 50's when it was available..It is the same reason none of you buy the land today that comes available, who has millions in todays market to do this...
biggrin.gif
 

sdgunslinger

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
65
Location
Gary , SD
"I guess I forgot about the '50's being like the '30's. Didn't realize the materials or money available to post-war Americans was not real. Guess the growth of America after the war has nothing to do with McDonald's now being a household name. Granted $2.50 was worth more then than now, but it's never been all THAT much."

That seems like a semi-sarcastic reply 1 pointer, so I guess I will expand on that point a bit .
biggrin.gif


The Fifties may have been good times and a growth period for the general economy , but that means little to the ag sector . Take the Eighties for example , great times for the economy in gerneral , but a total disaster in ag . Multiple bank failures and forclosures galore.

Cattle prices were poor in the late Fifties , early sixties. My dad in the early sixties used to buy big steers to feed out--$80 or $90 a head . Calves coming off western ranges would be worth even less . There were alot of small ranchers in those days , and likely they just didn't have deep enough pockets to do much about buying big chuncks of land .

You could buy new tractors or pickups for $1500 . $50000 or $100000 may not sound like alot to you in these days of quarter million starter homes , but they were quite tidy sums at one time . And not as far back as the Thirties either .
biggrin.gif
 

ELKCHSR

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
13,765
Location
Montana
It's like any other raw product in this country, some times its good some times it's bad, unless you have vast volumes of the commodity, it is never extremely good. Unlike the stock market that really has nothing tangible and is built basically on a paper mountain, but one can make huge windfalls in it with out a lot of $$$, relitivly speaking...
 

Lostagain

New member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
483
Location
MT
I have been trying to buy a little piece of BLM land since '84, and keep getting the runaround. I have offer more than a fair price... starting at $300 to last years offer of $1000 per acre, that's what its worth to me, but to someone else its prob worth less than a buck an acre. So don't be caught up in that crap of they would have bought but they had a better deal. Many other pieces of BLM ground is virtually worthless because it has no water and no access to water. I know the blm ground I lease is way better shape because of ME, not the blm, or marvel.
Another thing I read, the feds have too much ground to cover and not enough money. Too many roads, erosion, wildlife, wildfires, etcetc. Then they also then accept land from these nonprofits. This new land is then taken off the tax rolls and it stretches the already thin money some more.
 

ELKCHSR

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
13,765
Location
Montana
Good post Lost..
It seems this is the way it alway's is. They like to hold these little parcels like they will lose the world if it is taken out of their power holds. To the detriment of all. You can't just do nothing to it either and let it overgrow, then it becomes a great fire hazard..What's a guy to do...
frown.gif
 

1_pointer

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2000
Messages
18,108
Location
Indiana
SD- At least you get my point.
biggrin.gif
Sorry about the sarcasm.

Lost- You are so VERY correct!! A good land manager/steward will do MORE for the land than the BLM, which I think is counter productive. IMO, the federal agencies based their management of properties in the past for the sole extraction of a given resource and that's not good for the land in the long run. Those past practices are now why the FS and BLM spend about 70% of their budgets in litigation. Don't even try to tell me that ALL of that is from the environmental sector, because it's not. I find it ironic that ONE private consulting firm burnt more land in UT in the form of controlled burns than the BLM and FS COMBINED!! That's why his clients were buying cattle this past summer when all those around them were dang near giving them away! He manages for the health of the land, which in turn provides the product he wants to extract.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
100,927
Messages
1,603,935
Members
31,624
Latest member
HankBreck
Top