Kill the wild horses to give ranchers more grass

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Runner Coug

No, because folks like Levin don't believe in confining animals, only people. Particularly ranchers.

Ha ha. This actually made me laugh out loud.

Why do you all have persecution complexes? You feel sooooo threatened by the meany weany woofy and those who wish to reintroduce it where it has lived and shaped an ecosystem for thousands and thousands of years. Did your mamas not read you the Three Little Pigs when you were wittle? The wolfy didn't get the pigs . . . so rest easy.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Levin

Completely baseless assertion.

The buffalo roamed the midwestern grasslands. That was their job before the white man.

Cattle roam the rocky highlands and the arid deserts of the west. Different ecosystems completely than the midwestern prairies.

Now, about those antelope and horses causing as much damage to the lands in Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming as the cattle?

Baseless? Why? Because I make a good point?

You've been away from Utah for a long time, haven't you? I see more deer in the mountains out here than I do cattle.

And the cattle only roam if the ranchers aren't doing their job by keeping an eye on the cattle and moving them around to keep a balanced grazing schedule.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Baseless? Why? Because I make a good point?

You've been away from Utah for a long time, haven't you? I see more deer in the mountains out here than I do cattle.

And the cattle only roam if the ranchers aren't doing their job by keeping an eye on the cattle and moving them around to keep a balanced grazing schedule.

I haven't seen any studies that the natural deer population has caused as much damage to the land as the invasive cow population.

And if there are too many deer, you should want wolves; and lobby DWR to increase the number of deer permits.

It's just so obvious you're pulling an assertion out of nowhere . . . "Natural wildlife do as much damage as cows . . ." Plus, it's a nonsensical assertion. The natural wildlife shape the land in natural ways; cattle are artificial and shape it in unnatural ways.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Levin

I haven't seen any studies that the natural deer population has caused as much damage to the land as the invasive cow population.

And if there are too many deer, you should want wolves; and lobby DWR to increase the number of deer permits.

It's just so obvious you're pulling an assertion out of nowhere . . . "Natural wildlife do as much damage as cows . . ." Plus, it's a nonsensical assertion. The natural wildlife shape the land in natural ways; cattle are artificial and shape it in unnatural ways.

I'm not against wolves, as they should be reintroduced in all parks east of the Mississippi.

[Runner Coug]

Originally Posted by Levin

Ha ha. This actually made me laugh out loud.

I have to admit, I'm somewhat talking out of my butt. I don't know enough about the issue to argue intelligently, but I do know that my Gramps was a rough and tumble cattle rancher who cared deeply about the land. And it wasn't just to protect his own pocketbook, I think he had a bit of a conservationist streak that he passed down to me as well. But I've always noted that those with the most interest in the land (hunters, ranchers, etc) are typically the best stewards as well.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

These are not redundant terms.

Overweight speaks to the mass one carries on the frame. You can carry too much weight, a la a bodybuilder and not be fat.

Fat emphasizes it's unhealthy extra weight, so I submit both terms are necessary to describe those morons buzzing through the wild, when they above all others should be hoofin it.

NIce try buddy. You meant fat body-builders. Sire you did, you stubborn, hard-headed person.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Runner Coug

I have to admit, I'm somewhat talking out of my butt. I don't know enough about the issue to argue intelligently, but I do know that my Gramps was a rough and tumble cattle rancher who cared deeply about the land. And it wasn't just to protect his own pocketbook, I think he had a bit of a conservationist streak that he passed down to me as well. But I've always noted that those with the most interest in the land (hunters, ranchers, etc) are typically the best stewards as well.

My family has done that as well. Some of our ranch lands were or are being sold to environmental funds with the covenant that they never be opened up to commercial or residential land development.

Many ranchers love the land and protect it.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Levin

I haven't seen any studies that the natural deer population has caused as much damage to the land as the invasive cow population.

And if there are too many deer, you should want wolves; and lobby DWR to increase the number of deer permits.

It's just so obvious you're pulling an assertion out of nowhere . . . "Natural wildlife do as much damage as cows . . ." Plus, it's a nonsensical assertion. The natural wildlife shape the land in natural ways; cattle are artificial and shape it in unnatural ways.

If you want to disagree, that's cool. But my opinion is no more nonsensical than yours and Mike's belief that cattle ranchers rape the land.

I only make my comments based on my observations, but don't claim them to be anything more than that.

Speaking of assertations, where is the proof that cows are evasive? Other than from radical environmentalists beliefs?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

NIce try buddy. You meant fat body-builders. Sire you did, you stubborn, hard-headed person.

I am very open minded about overweight fat people, really I am.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Runner Coug

But I've always noted that those with the most interest in the land (hunters, ranchers, etc) are typically the best stewards as well.

I agree with this. The problem is that sometimes they can be blinded by self-interest. That's where we come in. (Ducking to avert the dung bombs being thrown my way . . . )