|
MrRodgers -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/10/2016 1:16:36 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:
All of these subsidies to ranchers also cost the environment. The Center for Biological Diversity sums up the ecological costs of cattle grazing: “By destroying vegetation, damaging wildlife habitats and disrupting natural processes, livestock grazing wreaks ecological havoc on riparian areas, rivers, deserts, grasslands and forests alike — causing significant harm to species and the ecosystems on which they depend.”
This statement is a misrepresentation of fact, as it uses the wrong term, which should be "over grazing."
On good pasture or grazing land, the maximum limit is five head per acre, unless we are talking horses, goats and sheep. Cattle actually do not graze to the ground, they actually will leave about an inch or more of the grass left, which allows it to recover, if proper grazing management is used.
The problem of the last quarter century is that the demand for 'free range' beef has risen to the point that it is more profitable to put as many cattle on a piece of land as possible. The problem is on the back side. Doing this damages the soil, which costs money to bring back to production.
When I was growing up, we had 500 acres, about half of that was used to produce hay, the rest was a mix of mesquite, juniper and buffalo grass. We never ran more than 300 head grazing, and usually had 50 to 75 calves being fattened on hay to sell at any one time.
However, the Bundy's routinely ran more stock on the BLM lands in question than would have been permitted. Yes, permitted. BLM charges fees based on animal, but they also put a limit on how many head you can put on the land you are using. Permits can be pulled and penalties issued for over grazing the land.
Jlf - again I agree and disagree.
If we accept these lands should be owned by ranchers - then how they graze their lands is no concern of ours. Its only when we have the preconceived notion that these lands should be wildlands (public lands?) managed by the BLM that the question of overgrazing occurs.
Thanks for the infor about the cattle per acre. Was interesting to hear your personal experiences.
I'm not hostile to the idea of national park lands. But the ranchers have some legitimate points.
The US owns 62% of Idaho. 62% of Alaska, 85% of Nevada, 65% of Utah, 53% of Oregon - but only owns .3% of connecticutt, 1% of Maine 1.2% of Ohio.
These national lands infringe on economic opportunities, road construction, water allocation. The state & federal government can more or less unilaterally force people out of business by deciding their grazing or water rights. And there's been frequent cases of abuse.
In response to both of your agree/disagree replies.
When would that be ? The federal govt. 'confiscated' that land from the Indians.
The western range livestock industry came into prominence in the decades after the Civil War because capitalization costs were minimal.
.....ranchers allowed their herds to graze freely on the federal lands, but moved their cattle between summer and winter ranges.
Cattlemen with Midwestern traditions ranged their cattle on the federal lands during the summer, and before winter, moved their herds close to the home ranch where they could be fed hay. After the harsh winters that occurred between 1886 and 1890, this became the predominate method of ranching in the West.
Financed by speculators who were attracted to the impressive profits of the large range outfit, which had minimal capital outlay and a seemingly unlimited supply of free forage on the federal lands, livestock herds grew rapidly on the public rangelands. They were severely overcrowded and depleted by the late 1800s. (In 1870, there were 4.1 million beef cattle and 4.8 million sheep in the 17 western states. In 1900, there were 19.6 million beef cattle and 25.1 million sheep.) As a consequence of greed and ignorance, the overtaxed, extremely exploited ranges became severely degraded and calls for gaining control of the situation from all quarters were becoming more insistent. Ranchers wanted to protect their traditional range for their assured future use.
Thus began cattlemen's sense if entitlement. Again:
Ranchers were forced by this situation to find other means to protect their use of what they considered their customary range. One means was barbed wire. By 1880, barbed wire had become inexpensive and large ranching operations began to fence in those public lands they used. Some of the enclosures covered hundreds of thousands of acres.
Water was next:
Controlling water sources was another means of monopolizing public land. For most of the arid and semiarid West, water is a precious commodity and livestock must have it to survive. A stream, spring, or water hole might be the only source of water for miles. A rancher could control the range by controlling the water sources. This was often accomplished when large ranching operations would have their cowboys make fraudulent entries under the Homestead, Preemption, Desert Land, and other public land laws that embraced springs or were along water courses.
Despite the limited control the ranchers acquired by these methods, the range continued to deteriorate. Attempts by Congress during the first quarter of the new century to legislate some sort of control of the western federal lands failed. Drought and depression in the early 1930s set the stage for a renewed attempt at legislative intervention and the Taylor Grazing Act was enacted...1934.
HERE
|
|
|
|
