Know what to look for

[Ithaca 37]

I'm convinvced that many who claim welfare ranchers aren't overgrazing just have no idea what they're looking at. Just because there's some green weeds growing in the Springtime doesn't mean the land is in good shape.

Here's a little info on what to look for:

"One of the most problematic obstacles for those advocating an end to public lands livestock grazing is the subtle nature of livestock abuse. Unlike the clearly visible damage to the land in a clearcut forest, the effects of livestock production on rangelands are far less obvious to the untrained eye...Yet for someone trained to "read" the landscape, the ecological wounds caused by livestock production are clear and abundant...."

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_part3.htm

It takes some self education to be able to recognize overgrazed land, but anyone can learn how. Well, maybe not everyone.

We have a few posters here in SI who probably can't.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-03-2003 17:28: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[whitedeer]

And the continuing saga of Jon Marvel suck-ups, suck-ons and wanna-bes continues, and continues, and continues..........Come on everybody, lets jump on the band wagon of adding millions and millions more acres of wilderness without roads, cattle, people, etc., etc., etc.....This continueous crap being generated by people getting filthy rich from all the books and papers and grants (wow, just look up the millions of dollars wasted on some of the real bacon coming out of congress) is getting old....Come on Ithaca.....lets hesr some more good bird hunting stories.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Whitedeer, can you name a few environmentalists who have become filthy rich from all the books, papers and grants?

If you added up all the acres under consideration for Wilderness designation in the Rocky Mtn. states do you have any idea how many there would be?

 

[whitedeer]

Marvel's buddy Bill Marlett has set a personal goal of setting aside 6 million acres of cattle-free wilderness alone in Oregon, and speaking of getting rich off environmental issues....how about your buddies Mark Salvo and George Wuerthner?

 

[Ithaca 37]

How filthy rich did Mark and George get from books, papers and grants? I doubt you have any knowledge of what their net income from books, papers and grants was.

You didn't answer the second question.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. As usual.

Sounds like Bill Marlett has a long way to go.

"Currently just 3%, or 5 million acres, of BLM land in the lower 48 states has been permanently protected by Congress as Wilderness."

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-03-2003 23:10: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Here is a great summary from the Welfare Rancher's Magazine. It is actually a pretty funny read. The writer obviously never went to Journalism class. But it is a great collection of 'whines' by the Welfare Rancher.

Terms of Surrender from Range Magazine.com

 

[Ithaca 37]

Gunner, Thanks for the great article!

"“I didn’t choose the title or the cover picture [showing a fat rancher on an off-road vehicle],” .....
Wuerthner’s impressive book assembles contributions from 35 other equally ope-minded thinkers with such views as these:

“Livestock grazing in the West is as outmoded as whaling in today’s oceans. It is a thing of the past, a ‘tradition’ whose practitioners are still immersed in a livelihood in which ecological reality has yet to sink in.”—Douglas Tompkins in the Foreword"

Pretty entertaining reading!

 

[whitedeer]

Well, well, well, Mr. Ithaca. One has to admire the tenacity with which you cling to your "Greenie" agenda. Again, you twist facts and statistics to satisfy your means. It just adds credence to the old saying that "there are lies, damn lies (liars) and statistics.

Depending upon your interpretation of consideration (What is is?) there are currently 244,125,270 acres of BLM "under consideration" of wilderness designation by some "wacko group" or another, including congressional and senatorial members.

And, oh yes, there are presently 6,487,258 acres of Congressionally Designated BLM wilderness. If you are going to try and twist facts, please get your facts straight.

And lets not forget the 102,270,732 acres of Wilderness designation already set aside in the western states.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-04-2003 08:40: Message edited by: whitedeer ]</font>

 

[Muledeer4me]

Ahhhhhhhh Whitedeer ,don't be to hard on Ithaca,he has finally found his fame.
A forum to spew forth his personal treehugging greenie agenda,while getting to test rancher hating spin .
Oh and the hate of anything else that isn't GREEN TO THE BONE.
Whitedeer,did you happen to be around when Ithaca gave us one of his favorite link's

http://www.compassionatespirit.com/index.htm


You have got to check it out ,it's a real eye opener to the way Ithaca think's.

 

[whitedeer]

Bless his little pointy head......he really does love us, doesn't he. Sorry I missed out on this other face of his......could it be that we have harshly mis-judged this loving, compassionate person?????
.....
....
...
..
.
NOT !!!

 

[Ithaca 37]

White, I'm still waiting to hear how rich Mark and George got. I wouldn't have even made an issue of it if you hadn't told us about environmentalists getting "filthy rich". Now I'm curious. You didn't twist any facts, did you?

And we all know MD4M won't hesitate to lie, so you can't give her any credibility. She brags about being a liar. Look in the "Judge is tired" topic.

OK, so my quote was a little outdated---we're closer to 6 1/2 million acres than 5 now. Big deal. And your estimates about how many acres are under consideration doesn't mean anything to anyone with a brain. You might as well say the whole country is under consideration.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-04-2003 10:19: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Bullhound]

It's obvious you (Ithaca) don't like the "facts" presented by Whitedeer. Kind of a bummer when your bullshit doesn't really cover the truth isn't it?

Of course, anybody with a brain doesn't need to hear the real facts, do they Ithaca.

 

[RockyDog]

Ithaca, open you phucking eyes. All you are doing with your extremism is making more people hate environmentalists.

You exude an elitist east coast attitude.

Besides, i choose ranchers over goddang subdivisions and summerhomes for rich yuppies from CA, VT, TX, etc. to come spend a week a year. Ranching practices may be lacking, but they can and will improve. That is if east coast yuppies dont shut them all down and turn the west into a GOLF COURSE.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Bull, White's facts are OK. They just don't have anything to do with my question or comments (except for his clarification on the # of wilderness acres).

The only way ranching practices have changed is by environmentalists hammering on them. Otherwise it would just keep being business as usual.

I don't care if people hate environmentalists. The environmentalists have the law on their side, they're right and they're going to win. If anyone hates environmentalists they're wasting their time and energy. They should hate the ones who are screwing up the environment---that would make a lot more sense. Especially if they drink water, breathe air or like to hunt and fish.

If anyone thinks it makes sense to hate environmentalists they should ponder whether they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

And as I've said many times---instead of bitching and whining go ahead and change the subject to some other topics.

I'm sure not stopping you.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-04-2003 14:15: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Ten Bears]

Not gonna waste my time.

 

[BigHornyRam]

IT,

Bad laws can be changed. You and George and the rest of your pals are too full of yourself to comprehend that the majority of Americans have had it with your ways. Keep it up and you will lose, along with what ever it is you are fighting for.

Paul

 

[1_pointer]

That document gives not indication of how to properly judge if an area is overgrazed. What about the fact that drought and overgrazing have the same impact on the plant community? Does the picture they post indicate whether or not a treatment was applied to one side or the other?

One snap-shot in time will not tell if an area is overgrazed. Actually, one of the pictures in Welfare Ranching was taken at Red Canyon Ranch near Lander, WY. The picture shows a stretch of a watershed that looks pretty bad. But, it fails to mention that it is a sportsmen's access to the stream that has not had cattle on it for awhile. Pictures can say 1000 words, but one must know the history of an area for the words to carry any weight.

Grazing practices are getting better for a number of reasons. One is that environmentalists have pushed for stricter adherence to current and past regulations. Another is that society is demanding more from ranchers on public lands. Plus, we now have a better understanding, through science, of the impacts of grazing at different levels on different areas. Yet another reason is that many ranchers are starting to realize the follies of the past. I met with some very progressive managers yesterday that are teaming up to combat cheatgrass and noxious weeds in NW UT. This is not only for the long-term benefit to wildlife or the environment, but also to thier livlihood and way of life.

We all know now of the problems we created in the last 100 years for wanting to put out all fires. Similarly, removing all livestock from public lands will have a negative effect on some areas. Livestock grazing is a double-edged sword. It can be a GREAT tool for improving and managing habitat (as can fire), but it can be detrimental if used improperly (as can fire).
I do not support any decision for a blanket management policy, whether that be all or no grazing. We, as those interested in NR management, must recognize and strike a balance between the environmental, economical, and social values inherent to a system to properly manage it for the long-term benefit to us and the system.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Paul, I'm amazed that you're so completely out of touch with reality.

 

[BuzzH]

Pointer good post, especially this part, "We, as those interested in NR management, must recognize and strike a balance between the environmental, economical, and social values inherent to a system to properly manage it for the long-term benefit to us and the system."

The only problem I see is that most of the time the "ECONOMICAL" takes way higher priority over the social and environmental values because of politics. Sound science and doing whats right isnt on the agenda of many politicians who, unfortunately, set policy and make demands of Land Managers based on agendas and who contributed the most to their campaign.

I still believe, like you, that there is a happy balance out there, but achieving it may not be possible. I've come to the conclusion that there are no, or damn few, politicians that have the balls to do whats right, in regards to Resource Management.

 

[Bullhound]

Very well put 1_pointer. I happen to agree with Ithaca on the basics of alot of issues but he does make it hard though.