Kill the wild horses to give ranchers more grass

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I got a shotgun..you ain't got one! You better get off, before I blow your ass off...this land was made for only me!

I reiterate that while I pray to the Almighty that John Marvel's pecker falls off, at least he does something proactive that replaces the lost revenue. Reading about wankers lamenting about the lost land ain't a thing like seeing a set of 38 triple d's on some hottie going commando with a broken zipper and realizing she is batting for the Utes. Your land ain't worth a damned thing without them thar cows munching on the black eyed susans.

It's funny to read wanker ranchers complaining about not getting their almost free land from the govt. because Marvel gets it for almost free instead. That is what is funny. GET OFF THE GOVT'S TIT YOU POSEUR!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's funny to read wanker ranchers complaining about not getting their almost free land from the govt. because Marvel gets it for almost free instead. That is what is funny. GET OFF THE GOVT'S TIT YOU POSEUR!

I would like to show you Nevada BLM land which you believe incorrectly is leased at too low a rate. Sitting in Dallas, it is easy to judge something you know not.

The land leases are fairly priced and eliminating this food source, as you are wont to do, is a mistake.

Conservationists don't want us drilling for oil, don't want nuclear power plants, don't want arid lands used for foodstuffs, and want not to use deodorant or taking baths. They probably also campaign against fluoride in the water.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

Eight dollar a gallon gas, foodstuffs costing outrageous prices, economies stagnant and regulated into submission. Do you recognize this? Welcome to America, the new Europe.

Of course, you're a doctor who can move throughout the world and take a new job when it gets too pricey, abandoning all your ethos. Not everyone has that luxury.

[Levin]

It's a good point that the BLM owns most of the West, and so we should be able to do out there what we've down everywhere else -- rape, pillage, and destroy. China and India make that argument too wrt to their environments.

I love central Nevada (Great Basin National Park is one of my favorites); I was just in the Wasatch mountains for the Fourth of July -- up by Scofield reservoir; it's no arid wasteland, but your typical aspen, conifer, meadow highlands. Cattle were everywhere. They're in the Uintas too. Get off your ignorant stand that all the land is a useless piece of shit. You have a low opinion of your surroundings, which makes me think you're blind.

I'm not for kicking off all the cattle, but your extreme reactions here is proof positive howt he debate needs to be moderated. Ranchers should not be able to run roughshod over the West; it should be more controlled and managed than it already is. And if that chafes, well that's the price you pay for us permitting your cows to shit on our land.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Levin

I'm not for kicking off all the cattle, but your extreme reactions here is proof positive howt he debate needs to be moderated. Ranchers should not be able to run roughshod over the West; it should be more controlled and managed than it already is. And if that chafes, well that's the price you pay for us permitting your cows to shit on our land.

But I would like to point out that referring to advocating local autonomy for gray wolf population control is an obvious goal to "eradicate the population" is a calm approach to the debate.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

But I would like to point out that referring to advocating local autonomy for gray wolf population control is an obvious goal to "eradicate the population" is a calm approach to the debate.

You're from Idaho; you know the government's plans, but if you insist:

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2008/080124a.asp

"I'm prepared to bid for the first ticket to shoot a wolf myself." Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, Jan. 11, 2007.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Levin

You're from Idaho; you know the government's plans, but if you insist:

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2008/080124a.asp

"I'm prepared to bid for the first ticket to shoot a wolf myself." Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, Jan. 11, 2007.

So local control through hunting, which also brings in more revenue for government lands, is a stated goal of eradication?

Do you think Otter and the rednecks are conspiring to eradicate deer and elk as well? I think there is occasionally tickets given out to shoot those animals as well.

I just trully appreciate your moderate approach to the subject.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Levin

It's a good point that the BLM owns most of the West, and so we should be able to do out there what we've down everywhere else -- rape, pillage, and destroy. China and India make that argument too wrt to their environments.

I love central Nevada (Great Basin National Park is one of my favorites); I was just in the Wasatch mountains for the Fourth of July -- up by Scofield reservoir; it's no arid wasteland, but your typical aspen, conifer, meadow highlands. Cattle were everywhere. They're in the Uintas too. Get off your ignorant stand that all the land is a useless piece of shit. You have a low opinion of your surroundings, which makes me think you're blind.

I'm not for kicking off all the cattle, but your extreme reactions here is proof positive howt he debate needs to be moderated. Ranchers should not be able to run roughshod over the West; it should be more controlled and managed than it already is. And if that chafes, well that's the price you pay for us permitting your cows to shit on our land.

Ranchers do NOT run roughshod over the ranges, that is pure bullshit. If you'd ever been in the business of ranching, it is very cyclical, very difficult, given the extreme cycles in price that beef sells for.

As stated earlier, a wise rancher manages the range so that he can rotate through again. He has no interest in running roughshod over land. Does a farmer wish to strip the ground of all its minerals, or does he want repeat growing seasons.

Ranchers, and I can't speak for the billion dollar corporate food chains, face a fight for their lives every single day, while salaried employees of the cities pontificate about range management. Total bullshit.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

So local control through hunting, which also brings in more revenue for government lands, is a stated goal of eradication?

Do you think Otter and the rednecks are conspiring to eradicate deer and elk as well? I think there is occasionally tickets given out to shoot those animals as well.

I just trully appreciate your moderate approach to the subject.

Okay, I'll back away from eradicate. But the Idaho wolf killing plan is not about population management, but population reduction. Of the reported 732 gray wolves in Idaho at the end of 2007, the state plans to kill 328 of them this year; that's a 40% reduction in one year. And we're not starting with a large population.

And that's just what the state plans to do. Otter passed a law the very day of the wolf's delisting that permitted anybody in Idaho to kill a wolf for "annoying, disturbing, chasing, worrying, following after, stalking, or laying in wait for livestock or domestic animals." Idaho Senate Bill No. 1374. That is carte blanche for anyone in Idaho to kill a wolf at any time; the law is impossible to enforce, and plus, any wolf within earshot of a domestic animal could fairly be described as "worrying" the domestic.

Just be honest about it: Idaho does not want the wolves; not one, and their "management" plan is a wolf reduction plan with the ultimate goal of wolf eradication.

And it's not about money (see Wolf Compensation Fund); it's about other things . . .

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Ranchers do NOT run roughshod over the ranges, that is pure bullshit. If you'd ever been in the business of ranching, it is very cyclical, very difficult, given the extreme cycles in price that beef sells for.

As stated earlier, a wise rancher manages the range so that he can rotate through again. He has no interest in running roughshod over land. Does a farmer wish to strip the ground of all its minerals, or does he want repeat growing seasons.

Ranchers, and I can't speak for the billion dollar corporate food chains, face a fight for their lives every single day, while salaried employees of the cities pontificate about range management. Total bullshit.

I'm not saying that ranchers do not have to struggle for their livelihood; but I think they have a disproportionately large influence in setting of land management policy, at least they have in the past -- it's ridiculous for you to say that Americans, wherever they may live, should shut up about how their public lands are managed. Provincial attitude at its worst.

There may be some culling of ranchers, but it is a price worth paying for a healthier land. Many people are forced to switch livelihoods based on the policy choices of the government. No reason why ranchers should be exempt from this.

Reduce raching and confine it to smaller areas. It's a lifestyle worth preserving, but not to the extent it is currently practiced.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Levin

I'm not saying that ranchers do not have to struggle for their livelihood; but I think they have a disproportionately large influence in setting of land management policy, at least they have in the past -- it's ridiculous for you to say that Americans, wherever they may live, should shut up about how their public lands are managed. Provincial attitude at its worst.

There may be some culling of ranchers, but it is a price worth paying for a healthier land. Many people are forced to switch livelihoods based on the policy choices of the government. No reason why ranchers should be exempt from this.

Reduce raching and confine it to smaller areas. It's a lifestyle worth preserving, but not to the extent it is currently practiced.

So you wish to reduce the ability to produce despite an ever growing population?

Ranchers only influence lands over which they might have access. And I can speak only for Nevada, which the federal government owns in large part, and has leased to mines, and to some extent ranchers. Most actual managers at the BLM don't seem to think badly of ranchers, it's only the prissy hippies who think, without knowing, that ranchers are bad people whose sole goal is to rape the land.