Idahoans to get money for wildlife habitat
- Thread starter Muledeer4me
- Start date
Finally, someone actually PAYING for what they want instead of just taking it with lawsuits. Some people are never happy, always have to complain.
“While landowner incentives are a very good tool to use in the short term, they don´t provide the long-term conservation assurances that acquisition provides,” Sierra Club spokesman Bart Semcer said.
Isn't that socialist? Have the gov't own everything.
“While landowner incentives are a very good tool to use in the short term, they don´t provide the long-term conservation assurances that acquisition provides,” Sierra Club spokesman Bart Semcer said.
Isn't that socialist? Have the gov't own everything.
Finally, someone actually PAYING for what they want instead of just taking it with lawsuits. Some people are never happy, always have to complain.
“While landowner incentives are a very good tool to use in the short term, they don´t provide the long-term conservation assurances that acquisition provides,” Sierra Club spokesman Bart Semcer said.
Isn't that socialist? Have the gov't own everything.
“While landowner incentives are a very good tool to use in the short term, they don´t provide the long-term conservation assurances that acquisition provides,” Sierra Club spokesman Bart Semcer said.
Isn't that socialist? Have the gov't own everything.
I'm trying to say....is if these groups want more, they should just go buy it, pay for it. Good deal for the land. Now someone else doesn't think they got they got a very good deal.
Nearly every ag person out there would go along with some sort of partnership that allowed them to keep in the ag business and still have some level of control over their operations. That would be the kicker, the control--- I don't think those groups and the ag folks could come to an agreement that would satisfy all of them.
Nearly every ag person out there would go along with some sort of partnership that allowed them to keep in the ag business and still have some level of control over their operations. That would be the kicker, the control--- I don't think those groups and the ag folks could come to an agreement that would satisfy all of them.
Uh Lost, I think that's what they meant by "acquisitions". They pay for land or for conservation easements, they don't just condemn the land to protect it.
Oak
*edited for spelling error
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-27-2003 11:49: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>
Oak
*edited for spelling error
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-27-2003 11:49: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>
You're right Lost, not everyone can be happy. However, I think there is plenty evidence that both means can be accomplished. I just listened to a seminar yesterday about a ranch and through their management since '82 they have increased the number of elk by 1000, antelope from 0 to 600, sagegrouse to over 600males and at the same time increased cattle by 5500! So it can be done, its just up to the stewards (both private and federal) to get the job done.
Ten Bears
New member
You can't make everybody happy all the time. I'm sure some (e or w)group will file a suit to get there share.
Similar threads
