Ithaca 37
New member
Troy, Maybe you'd have a different perspective if you knew what the situation is in Idaho and some of the other Rky Mtn. States, where welfare ranchers have always thumbed their noses at anyone advocating even the slightest change. For many years individuals and groups tried to reason and work with welfare ranchers but got nowhere because the ranchers had all the power. We've had endless topics on this here in SI, but I'll supply a few links for you to look at. Please don't tell us the organizations linked to are full of BS unless you can supply us with some backup articles or links.
I'd gladly read anything that refutes the facts presented by the BLM, FS, and many organizations.
First, "it's a term used for a very few." 30,000 seems like more than a few. That's how many subsidized ranchers are on BLM, FS and state and local gov't lands.
Here's a basic overview of the problem:
"Three hundred million acres. That is what is at stake. In round figures, some 300 million acres of public lands-federal, state, and county-are currently leased for livestock production."
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_intro.htm
Although cattle grazing in the West has polluted more water, eroded more topsoil, killed more fish, displaced more wildlife, and destroyed more vegetation than any other land use, the American public pays ranchers to do it.
--Ted Williams, "He's Going to Have an Accident"
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter7.html
And here's some info about how the deck is stacked against anyone who hopes to change the welfare ranching situation. If mere talk would do it lawsuits wouldn't be necessary.
"In practice, the Land Board has frequently used state lands to help prop up a long-suffering livestock industry, rejecting WWP's offers to pay significantly more money for state leases."
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002_fall.html
At the bottom of that article you can click on "Home" and read lots more about Jon Marvel's uphill battle to restore public land quality, in which he and others have been fought the whole way by welfare ranchers, BLM, FS, state and local gov'ts. It took many lawsuits and appeals to make any progress.
I'm glad you've had some success with your approach in SD. Before you start comparing me and Buzz to spoiled children you need lots of education. You got off to a real bad start showing us how to work together. Want me to compare you to some categories?
Here's what you told us in your first post:
"If you want to lease your local BLM property no one is stopping you."
That's been 100% refuted in the following posts.
If I were inclined, I could easily think of some very unflattering names and comparisons to apply to you, as you've done to some of us who have worked real hard here in SI to educate people about the welfare ranching issue. You're not helping by posting simplistic misinformation without any back up.
I sure hope you'll continue to discuss this issue and supply us with anything you can to substantiate your claims. I'd hate to see you stop just because you ran into a few other posters who can easily debate you---and provide plenty of substantiation.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-15-2003 11:54: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>
I'd gladly read anything that refutes the facts presented by the BLM, FS, and many organizations.
First, "it's a term used for a very few." 30,000 seems like more than a few. That's how many subsidized ranchers are on BLM, FS and state and local gov't lands.
Here's a basic overview of the problem:
"Three hundred million acres. That is what is at stake. In round figures, some 300 million acres of public lands-federal, state, and county-are currently leased for livestock production."
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/wr_intro.htm
Although cattle grazing in the West has polluted more water, eroded more topsoil, killed more fish, displaced more wildlife, and destroyed more vegetation than any other land use, the American public pays ranchers to do it.
--Ted Williams, "He's Going to Have an Accident"
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter7.html
And here's some info about how the deck is stacked against anyone who hopes to change the welfare ranching situation. If mere talk would do it lawsuits wouldn't be necessary.
"In practice, the Land Board has frequently used state lands to help prop up a long-suffering livestock industry, rejecting WWP's offers to pay significantly more money for state leases."
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002_fall.html
At the bottom of that article you can click on "Home" and read lots more about Jon Marvel's uphill battle to restore public land quality, in which he and others have been fought the whole way by welfare ranchers, BLM, FS, state and local gov'ts. It took many lawsuits and appeals to make any progress.
I'm glad you've had some success with your approach in SD. Before you start comparing me and Buzz to spoiled children you need lots of education. You got off to a real bad start showing us how to work together. Want me to compare you to some categories?
Here's what you told us in your first post:
"If you want to lease your local BLM property no one is stopping you."
That's been 100% refuted in the following posts.
If I were inclined, I could easily think of some very unflattering names and comparisons to apply to you, as you've done to some of us who have worked real hard here in SI to educate people about the welfare ranching issue. You're not helping by posting simplistic misinformation without any back up.
I sure hope you'll continue to discuss this issue and supply us with anything you can to substantiate your claims. I'd hate to see you stop just because you ran into a few other posters who can easily debate you---and provide plenty of substantiation.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-15-2003 11:54: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>
