Just a question

[quail hunter]

So do the people that are wanting the cattle off the public lands really believe that it does'nt cause hardship for the rancher?
Then why do alot of the ranchers that lose the grazing rights always seem to sell off there vast private holdings to developers ?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Well, First of all, do you actually know of welfare ranchers who lost their grazing leases? Why'd they lose them?

 

[quail hunter]

Yes I do, and most of the time its due to being labeled as overgrazed.
Sometimes I wonder if the word overgrazing is not just some word that the groups have found that carries alot of weight and if used right it can stop grazing allotments.
Kinda like the desert tortoise, it stopped numerous public land usage, the only thing it could'nt stop was developers, they got wise and traded land for turtle habitat and got to build where they wanted.
I've hunted on land deemed overgrazed, and quite frankly,the grass and weeds were so high it was'nt even fun.
There was a poster on here "queinsabe" who ranches down in New Mexico who shed some light on needing grazing rights on public lands, Elkgunner "chatted with him on why" and I thought he explained it well.
He had just sold some acres or so due to the fact the grazing land he needed was declared overgrazed.It was based on giving his private grazing land time to heal, so thats his reason for needing the rights.
So is the word "overgrazing" a weapon?
I recall trout fishing maggie creek on the beaver dams while cattle were allowed to access the water and while there were some areas where the cattle likjed to hang out for the most part the creek was nice.
Then they fenced the cattle out due to destruction of the riparin? areas and when I went back in to flyfish ,could'nt even get into the creek,the brush and willows were choking everything off.
I don't think it has anything to do with the "overgrazing" or following the law, I believe its all about get the cattle off..period. So educate me, I'm listening..

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 09-10-2003 15:48: Message edited by: quail hunter ]</font>

 

[1_pointer]

You stated that some areas the grass and weeds were too high. What types (ie species) were they? Many grass and weed species are the result of overgrazing. So, just because there is vegetation there doesn't mean it is not overgrazed. Also, I'm not aware of willows along a creek being a bad thing, but don't know about your area. I don't think 'overgrazed' is a weapon, but in many cases is just plain fact. The 'weapon' part, if there is one, is the determination of what defines land as overgrazed.

Overgrazing and the desert tortoise are two very different things.

 

[Ten Bears]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Our worst grazing allotment is better than our best subdivision."
--Janette Kaiser, USFS
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[Ithaca 37]

"Our worst grazing allotment is better than our best subdivision."
--Janette Kaiser, USFS

So that's supposed to justify having public land in poor condition? Only idiots would accept that as a justification for anything. Suppose she said, "Our worst grazing allotment is better than our best toxic waste site."? I suppose the feeble minded would say, "Oh, that's good news! Now we don't have to worry about anything.".

 

[JoseCuervo]

That quote....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Our worst grazing allotment is better than our best subdivision."
--Janette Kaiser, USFS
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't make any sense to me. Does the USFS have subdivisions? And when did they get into the development business????

 

[1_pointer]

EG- The same thing ran across my mind. Maybe that should be the motto for the private land ranchers to gain public support. There is a similar ad campaign here in UT right now, "Home on the Range, or Homes on the Range"

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 09-12-2003 14:10: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>

 

[Ten Bears]

So, having subdivisions is preferable to public range land? Please explain that.

IT/GRINNER, what was the condition of the range on the Boise front prior to developement, and what is the condition of the same winter range used by muledeer after the developement? How much of that land was public land before it was "aquired" in land brokerages, and broken up into ranchettes and subdivisions? I do know the state owned a portion of it.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 09-12-2003 11:21: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>

 

[1_pointer]

TB- You must be reading into something that I'm not, as I don't think anyone stated that subdivisions are better than rangelands. I think the discrepancy is that the USFS is using that as a motto, when they are not charged with being in the business of housing developments.

 

[Oak]

That quote shows the USFS official's true alliance. Rather than putting the forest health in the forefront, she has sided with the economic situation of the rancher. As others have said, forest lands are not converted to subdivisions when grazing allotments are closed. Perhaps the rancher will sell his own land to developers, but what happens outside the national forest boudaries should not enter in to the decisions made by those who are hired to ONLY manage the forest.

Oak

 

[Ten Bears]

1-P, you guys are also reading more into the statement. I used the comment as a slogan, not the USFS, and I did so because I know of some land trading deals that have resulted in trades of public lands for development of subdivisions, among other things, on winter range.

To me the statement just says that poor grazing conditions can be healed, but developmental encroachment will always be just that.

What is the range condition for a subdivision anyways?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Comparing FS grazing leases to subdivisions is an attempt to divert attention from the issue. It's indicative of the contempt some FS officials have for the public if they think they can change the topic with statements like that. And anybody who falls for that diversion tactic should have their head examined.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 09-12-2003 18:58: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

I think the only thing that quote shows, is that you don't understand the issues before you post.

If you are against Subdivisions and development, then you need to start working to pass laws rototilling the Constitution and our private property rights in America. I believe you are either a Communist or a Socialist, but I always get those two mixed up.

In my opinion, the FS quote is absurd, and doesn't make sense in ANY context.

Now Ten, if you want to go start a NEW thread, and post on the lousy job the Idaho State Land Board is doing, then I will look forward to reading your thoughts. And if you really are concrned about the abdication of duties by the State Land Board, I would suggest you sue them, as that is how Jon Marvel has been so succesful against them every time he gets tired of their behaviour toward our school children in Idaho.