|
jlf1961 -> RE: Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters (1/10/2016 6:41:04 PM)
|
What you neglected to mention:
The current grazing rights and number of cattle were agreed to by the ranchers and the BLM:
quote:
As the need for a comprehensive management plan for the refuge was realized, ranch operators were concerned about the possibility of further reductions in grazing allotments. Drafting of a new management plan began in 2008, and was a collaborative process involving varied stakeholders in the refuge's future, including ranch operators. The final plan, completed in 2013 and intended to inform refuge operations for the following 15 years, was accepted by both refuge managers and cattle owners as an agreeable compromise between potentially opposing interests in the land. Grazing was allowed to continue under the plan, and is seen as a valuable tool in some areas to combat invasive plants that threaten the refuge's habitat quality; however, the extent of grazing may be reduced in specific areas if it is scientifically shown to be detrimental to the refuge's wildlife. source
One more point, both cites and links by lucy are right wing, ultra conservative websites, neither of which are known to be impartial. Its the same as some liberal citing huffpost or MSNBC. Both sites rate up there with Beck and Alex Jones.
Not only do these sites not mention the reason that grazing in some areas were reduced, as a direct result of trying to preserve some archaeological sites (as soon as the sites are studied, size established and any finds cataloged as to location of find etc) grazing rights will be increased if not back to full number of animals.
The BLM has done the same on public lands in New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado to preserve Anasazi sites as well, returning grazing rights to ranchers after the work has been done and areas of historic significance isolated from any possible damage by lifestock (including wild horses.)
You might also consider researching the number of ranchers that went bankrupt, and not due to lost grazing rights on public land, prior to BLM land purchases.
The final point, the whole area is smack in the middle of the Oregon High Desert. I have been through the area driving a truck, a antique breed of cattle like the Longhorn couldnt survive well up there. Actually, the broken lava feilds around Grants New Mexico is better ground that area is.
And the irrigation system that the ranchers are screaming about? Do you have any clue as to what decades of constant irrigation does to the soil, especially in areas like high desert? It leaches the minerals out of it.
The central valley of California is discovering that. Hell the ranchers around Artesia Wells Texas discovered that 60 years ago.
So, it boils down to this, give the ranchers what they want, turn the high desert from a semi productive region to a zero productive region and then everyone goes belly up OR do exactly what the hell they are doing.
I was raised on ranches, I know what it means to keep land in production. I also have seen what happens when a few short sighted idiots go hog wild and ruin the land for anything for at least 70 years, and thats if you are lucky.
There are tracts in west Texas that were over grazed, over irrigated and ruined during the cattle boom of the sixties and seventies. The only thing growing on it are yucca and prickly pear. Mesquite wont even take root on it.
I am not a tree hugging nature fanatic by a long shot, but I know what is and is not good when it comes to land. Large tracts of the Oregon high desert is played out as bad as HUGE tracts of the central California Valley which gave a great comeback from an age old party guest, Valley Fever. With no grass to hold the soil, the dust is carrying Valley Fever spores across half the state.
|
|
|
|
