Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

State of Wyoming Admidts Overgrazing Hurts Deer and Elk

JoseCuervo

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
9,752
Location
South of the Border
The state of Wyoming threatend to sue the fed's due to overgrazing. But, the irony is that they want the wild horses to quit overgrazing, as it hurts the deer and elk, but they want the Welfare Rancher's cattle to do the overgrazing...
rolleyes.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> BLM to cut Wyoming wild horse herds
Associated Press
– The Bureau of Land Management will cut the number of wild horses on Wyoming public lands in order to settle complaints from state officials, who claimed mismanagement was hurting rangelands.

The bureau needs to round up another 2,200 horses in order to reach previously set management levels, said Cindy Wertz, a BLM spokeswoman in Wyoming. There are now about 5,400 wild horses in Wyoming, Wertz said.

In May, state officials said they intended to sue the bureau, claiming it had mismanaged wild horses to the point that grasslands were overgrazed, hurting deer and elk herds.

They asked the BLM to keep the number of horses at appropriate management levels. The agency has agreed to do so by December 2004, according to a settlement announced Wednesday by the Justice Department.

“The basic, bottom line here is that the state of Wyoming and the U.S. Department of the Interior have avoided long-term, costly litigation,” Tom Sansonetti, a federal assistant attorney general for natural resources, said at a state press conference Wednesday.

“In my own estimation, by the time this thing had gone through district court, appellate court, whatever, it would be a year from now in trying to get to the bottom line of what’s the right thing to do.”

Wyoming Department of Agriculture Director John Etchepare said some ranchers, especially those near southwest Wyoming’s Adobe Town Wilderness Study Area, have been unable to graze cattle in certain areas because wild horses have eaten too much grass.

“The other problem we have now is we have to wait for that to begin to recover,” he said.

Attorney General Pat Crank pointed out that large numbers of horses can damage areas around streams and springs. “There is only so much water out in the Red Desert,” he said.

“The horses congregate out there and they eat all the feed around the various watering sources. And that could have a significant impact on the wildlife.”

The state is home to one of the largest wild horse populations in the country. The BLM oversees 16 herd management areas across the state, many in remote areas of Carbon and Sweetwater counties, in the southern part of the state.

Wertz said the BLM has gathered 3,100 wild horses since Oct. 1 – more than half of which were rounded up within the past month.

More gathers are planned for this fall.

Federal law calls for excess wild horses removed from public rangelands to be relocated to long-term sanctuaries and made available to private owners for at least $125 through a BLM adoption program.

Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., praised the settlement.

“This is an important step to address the immediate needs in Wyoming, but we must continue to develop long-term solutions to ensure the viability of the rangelands and the health of the herds throughout the West,” Thomas said.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
 
This mentality has spawned a new welfare rancher. Ranchers paid by the gummint to warehouse wild horses. When the horses are rounded up, and there are not enough buyers for the horses, the excess go to gummint funded horse sanctuaries. Here's a novel idea. Sell the excess horses for slaughter, and use the proceeds to pay for the round up costs, and other costs associated to managing the wild horses. Maybe we can feed the hungry and homeless horse burgers and horse loaf.

Let's see, cattle ranchers pay dollars to graze BLM land, and produce a product (food) on it. They may or may not overgraze the land. The horses pay nothing, produce nothing, and are in fact overgrazing the land. Not very hard for anyone with a phucking brain to figure out what the problem is here.

I am getting tired of the worn out response that 60% of the range lands are in bad condition. 1 Pointer, what % of ranchers who use BLM lands to graze on, are damaging the range lands TODAY? If they are damaging the land, doesn't someone stop them? If the wild horses damage the land, shouldn't the BLM do something about it?

Paul
 
Paul- I have no numbers as to the % of ranchers damaging the land. However, I do question the validity of the 60% number for current land condition. I think much of this is considered poor condition because current condition is being compared to potential condition. This opens up a whole slew of problems. Right now, my job is to collect the data. If I find out I will post it. If they are found to be damaging the land, more often than not their AUMs are reduced. If they put out more stock than allowed they are filed with a trespass. Trespass prosecution is a HUGE headache and costs mucho dinero. Just last year a county sherriff in So. UT released the livestock being held due to a repeated trespass as HE felt it was wrong of the government to do so. The local BLM office did not fight it and is trying to work out a compromise.
mad.gif
rolleyes.gif


I for one would favor the redistribution of AUMs from wild [feral] horses to cattle. For one, cattle produce something and two they are more easily regulated. Though I don't know much about the Wild Horse and Burro Act (a stupid law passed on emotion on little/no science), the BLM's hands are tied by this law. It is near impossible to do anything to control the horses. Using them for food is out of the question as that is against the law. It is my understanding that it is illegal to adopt a horse and then sell it for consumption. Stupid!! In more than one Horse Management Area the population has topped the maximum allowed numbers. But instead of actively reducing the population, the quota is just increased. Wild horses and burros have more protection than most species on listed on the ESA! Hell, they haul water nearly everday in the summer to keep many of these horses alive in UT!

In my couple of months working in the Salt Lake Field Office I've noticed that many of the resource specialists WANT to get things done but all too often are constrained by red tape and money. Right now most all the money is going to fight fire and fire prevention.
 
The wild horse and burro act was passed in responce to a good friend of mine [Sam Steiger] shooting of a couple of wild [feral] burro`s, Sam was a congressman from prescott AZ at the time , and a bunch of [mainly] back east liberals just had to protect the poor burro`s, Sam was a great man, a real hands on type of guy. you are 100% correct 1-pointer this law [act] was passed on pure emotion, just like a lot of laws, affirmitive action etc.
 
I wonder how many of those "60%" acres are supporting wild ponies and burros? IT, you seem to be the big harper about the "60%". Why don't you check into that?
tongue.gif
tongue.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
fight.gif
biggrin.gif
 
Ten, Do your own research. Until somebody shows a figure other than 60% (which is conservative) I'll continue using 60%. Why don't you and all the others who don't like the 60% figure show us some data that claims otherwise?
biggrin.gif
I bet you can't.
biggrin.gif
 
BigHornyRam says, "I am getting tired of the worn out response that 60% of the range lands are in bad condition."
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif


That's another reason he's such a laughingstock! Well, BHR, it's a fact and if you don't like it that's gonna be tough. There's no sense getting angry about the truth, but go ahead and waste your energy!
biggrin.gif
60% is conservative, so maybe we should start saying 65% of BLM is in poor condition due to overgrazing. What number would you rather use----58%? 85% of the riparian zones are in poor condition due to overgrazing. How about if we start pointing that out!
 
There are many species of animal that graze, and even more that brouse. Which are the causative in each case. We can see by your recent posting that you feel free to through numbers around without basis.
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
 
Ten, If you think you're going to get me to play your little games you must think I'm more stupid than you are. We've given links to the percentages of BLM land in all the categories many times. Maybe you're incapable of remembering, maybe you're just lying again, or maybe you think you can trick someone into playing your games. You must really be stupid.
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
 
IT, I'm just saying that grazing does not = cows. Refute that.
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif


I only play the same games that you do. Don't like the heat, don't stand so close to the camp fire.
fight.gif


As I said in the past, and 1-P has been saying lately, poor condition is a relative term used to compare the current values of man upon a site, when the values are weighed in relation to another site. Are you following me here? Many/some sites do not have the potential or ability to be anything more then they are right now. Do you comprehend that?

I see you have once again resorted to attempting to belittle my intelligence. Why don't you quit trying to baffle and bluster your way through these things with Bull54!t, and show some of the intellectual fortitude you seem so proud of?

Again IT, you have accused me of lying. Where have I lied in the past?
 
Paul, from 1998-2001 I inventoried a lot of BLM land while working for the RWRP.

I followed the inventory procedures agreed upon by the BLM, USFS, USFWS, 2 Canadian Provinces, several Tribes, many private land owners, etc. They all used the same set of variables found in an exhaustive collection of data on their lands.

I'd say what I personally inventoried is pretty much spot on with the 60% figure that Ithaca has given links to.
 
Ten bears, sorry, but you're wrong.

What we inventoried were simply indicators of range health agreed upon by professionals around the world, as to what constitutes a healthy range and what constitutes an unhealthy one.

We did not compare past or future values of anything. We had no motive, desire, or need to show any value of any range. Our data was also reviewed by the agencies we worked for.

An over-grazed and abused piece of land is what it is, nothing more, nothing less...and our inventory methods proved beyond any doubt at all if a range was in poor shape or good shape. You couldnt argue that with your "potential value" crap, I guarantee it. All we dealt with was the current condition, and the current condition only.

But, the one constant is that an over-grazed piece of land is less productive for livestock, wildlife, watersheds, etc. etc. etc.

Also, I'm sure much of the data we collected was responsible for the BLM's source of info. on the condition of 60% of their lands, that being in "poor condition".

When you come up with a better or more fair way to determine CURRENT range condition, I got some people that would be very interested...and you probably wouldnt have to worry about finding all the work you wanted either.
 
BUZZ, in your haste to tell me I'm wrong, you stated the same thing I was saying. A "value"/"condition" was assigned without consideration of the "potential" for the section of land. Thank you, but in cases, some of that land will never, grazing cows or not, be more then just what it is, poor land for grazing.

Maybe you should reread what I had posted.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
111,356
Messages
1,956,061
Members
35,140
Latest member
Wisco94
Back
Top