Kill the wild horses to give ranchers more grass

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Fundamentally I disagree that persons who do not have a direct interest in land management should have a say in it. Why should somebody in NYC be able to dictate what happens to ranchers in central Nevada, all the while being a big recipient of the benefits of federal tax dollars through contributions to the municipalities via the tax shifts.

I don't want to dictate to Idaho what should happen in Idaho.

I do have a direct interest; I'm from the West; I visit public lands where cattle graze multiple times each year; I vote for my politicians based on their views on issues affecting the West . . .

But I think you miss a major point about public lands -- they are not Idaho's or Utah's or Nevada's. They belong to the American people. It is not about dictating what you can do on your land, but what you can do on our land. You're being provincial. Just because you have the happy circumstance of living nearer to public lands doesn't mean all others should shut up.

[Runner Coug]

Originally Posted by Levin

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

Wow...it's hard to get more condescending than that. I'm sure that ranchers who bust their ass every single day would be so grateful to hear that you think their lifestyle is worth preserving (in limited quantity, of course).

I've been to many places in SE Idaho that my Grandpa used to graze his cattle on. They pretty much look like all the other areas around that were never used for grazing, and there are still plenty of trees to hug.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Levin

Yep -- that's it exactly.

Difference is I expand the sphere, and I think I should have a say too, even if I live back East, in how the people's natural resource is managed. The wolf belongs to all of us.

Problem is that people in Idaho/Wyoming/Utah/Montana have to pay a disproportionate share of the price, but the money issue can be solved, and the Wolf Compensation Fund, though imperfect, is part of the solution.

How to heal the sense of injustice of having the national government set policy on a national issue, not sure how to do that, but I'm sure blasting away at the wolves will help you drown out the pain.

Tell you what, I don't want any of the gray wolf. You can have my share. You keep 'em, feed 'em and love 'em. Unlike the cow they never shit anywhere, so you ought to love 'em. I will keep the cows you detest so much. You do in your neighborhood with the wolf as you please and I promise not to tell you how to run your shop, can I be afforded the same privilege with my cows?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Venkman

So do we get a say in how you run 50-80% of your state's land? Oh wait, the fedgov owns little land east of the Mississippi. How convenient for you guys. Tough cookies for us I guess.

Yep, exactly. Just consider yourself lucky, unless you really want Idaho to become the new New Jersey.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Levin

I do have a direct interest; I'm from the West; I visit public lands where cattle graze multiple times each year; I vote for my politicians based on their views on issues affecting the West . . .

But I think you miss a major point about public lands -- they are not Idaho's or Utah's or Nevada's. They belong to the American people. It is not about dictating what you can do on your land, but what you can do on our land. You're being provincial. Just because you have the happy circumstance of living nearer to public lands doesn't mean all others should shut up.

How is it, again, that the Feds came to control this land? WHy is that 80% plus of land int he west is fed owned but eh numebrs are reversed (or less) in the East?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Levin

I do have a direct interest; I'm from the West; I visit public lands where cattle graze multiple times each year; I vote for my politicians based on their views on issues affecting the West . . .

But I think you miss a major point about public lands -- they are not Idaho's or Utah's or Nevada's. They belong to the American people. It is not about dictating what you can do on your land, but what you can do on our land. You're being provincial. Just because you have the happy circumstance of living nearer to public lands doesn't mean all others should shut up.

Perhaps you are the exception to most of the environmental extremists. You do visit here at times.

I still disagree with you about how the land should be managed because folks in the east who have never been out this way want to do things that have a real impact on my family members who depend on the federal lands for a living.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Runner Coug

Wow...it's hard to get more condescending than that. I'm sure that ranchers who bust their ass every single day would be so grateful to hear that you think their lifestyle is worth preserving (in limited quantity, of course).

I've been to many places in SE Idaho that my Grandpa used to graze his cattle on. They pretty much look like all the other areas around that were never used for grazing, and there are still plenty of trees to hug.

Archaea was waxing eloquently about the toughness and glory of the cattle rancher's life; how people have lived it for generations; how it is a wonderful tradition. I agree with all that. But it doesn't mean that for some, it may have to be sacrificed for the greater good.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Levin

Yep, exactly. Just consider yourself lucky, unless you really want Idaho to become the new New Jersey.

LOL, yes we have the feds to thanks for saving Idaho from New Jersey's fate.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Levin

Yep, exactly. Just consider yourself lucky, unless you really want Idaho to become the new New Jersey.

This statement encapsulates the problem. Take your deep concern for us and our state and cram them so far up your ass you will belch out Bitterroot for time and all eternity. Honestly, we made do without your help before and we will make do without your help again. Kindly ignore us and we promise to reciprocate.

[Levin]

I agree that those in the West should have a large voice in how public lands within their states are managed, but it's ridiculous to maintain that the rest of the American people should shut up about how their land is managed.

I wish predators could be reintroduced in the East; problem is, the mid atlantic and southeast was never a part of the historical range of the wolf. The northeast was, and I hope, if the Maine Woods become a new national park, that the wolf would be reintroduced, if it's feasible.

You all just have the lucky fortune of living in a place where it's still feasible.