Jim Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 On your way to the peaks you may have to deal with more cow patties. I often work with these issues and this is another bad proposal by the Bushies. BLM, which admisters 262 million acres of federal land has announced new rules to "streamline" the grazing permit process. Currently grazing fees on federal lands bring in less than $6.5 milion per year while the costs of administrating the same grazing cost $63 million. The new rules would lower the fees for grazing on federal land from $1.43 per animal unit month (AUM) to $1.35. The costs of administering the grazing does not cover the cost of grazing to upland, wetland, and riparian habitats, aquatic systems, fish, etc. One of the bigger problems with the program is that the fees do not match market rates in the private sector, i.e. - a subsidy for ranchers, more environmental damage, and money out of your pocket to run the program. The proposed rules also would allow grazing permitees to hold title to portions of public (your) land and would significantly reduce the ability of the public to appeal decisions. The comment meeting schedule and proposed rule changes can be found at: www.blm.gov/nhp/news/regulatory/index.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fejas Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 The entire Ochacco mountain range in oregon is open range for livestock during parts of the year... most states already have a large section of public land that are open to livestock... like almost the entire state of Wyoming... don't want them on your land, then fence them out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 mmmmm cows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted March 13, 2003 Author Share Posted March 13, 2003 That's the issue. I don't want them on my land - my land (and yours) run by the Bureau of Land Mismanagement or the US Forest Circus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegetablebelay Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Jim, don't you have some water to look after or something else to do besides all your whining? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Currently grazing fees on federal lands bring in less than $6.5 milion per year while the costs of administrating the same grazing cost $63 million so who pays for grazing cost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Uhhh ... that would be the guys that own the cows for the 6.5 mil and you and me for all the rest of the costs of the program. Pretty neat huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Bush sucks. The old system screws the taxpayer and the proposed system makes it worse. The same goes for the mining laws. The public always loses out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 catbirdseat said: Bush sucks. The old system screws the taxpayer and the proposed system makes it worse. The same goes for the mining laws. The public always loses out. Oh, but we should definitely be subsidizing ranchers, cause as we all know, raising fucking cattle is the best food-per-land deal around. IDIOTS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted March 13, 2003 Author Share Posted March 13, 2003 I'm not sure if your serious - but no, grazing cattle on public land is no bargin, for the public anyway. Over 90% of cattle are stockyard raised these days at a lower cost. There are problems with that of course - take a read of "Fast Food Nation" and you'll never eat ground beef again. Private ranching for grass-fed cows. No problem. Just get the public land leaches off our land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fejas Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I supose you hippies eat tofu, live in plastic or recycled metal houses, and wipe you asses with a wash clouth then wash it when your done... not here... its not like its forrest lands, just BLM... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Winter said: Uhhh ... that would be the guys that own the cows for the 6.5 mil and you and me for all the rest of the costs of the program. Pretty neat huh? I suspect as much, but they may claim to be paying for it via another blm program? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 My point is using land to allow cattle to graze is bullshit, period. It's what a huge portion of the rain forest is being ripped down for. Why? So this fat ass nation can eat mcdonalds cheap. I'm not a vegetarian, and never want to be one. I enjoy a nice fat steak every once in a while, or a burger for that matter. But the fact remains that the price we pay in order to let fat asses eat beef every single day is quite high, but in terms of public cost and cost to the environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I dislike cows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 but I feel sorry for those ones you see roaming the canyons in Escalante that miss the drives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I thought the currently trendy cause of deforestation was Starbucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Yeah, I've heard that coffee ain't so nice to the forests too. I can certainly believe that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 the prairies supported a higher number of buffalo than currently exist on the feedlots and range land of north america but the prairies had the other animals too passenger pigeon timber wolf mammoth human kill the cow and bring back the buffalo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fejas Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 The large portion of BLM has already been logged or will be logged off, so if we have no controle over that then why should we worry about our forrests being destroyed by cows... the chain saws will do more damage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Fejas said: The large portion of BLM has already been logged or will be logged off, so if we have no controle over that then why should we worry about our forrests being destroyed by cows... the chain saws will do more damage... My point is that in many parts of central and south america the chain saws are being used to destroy the forests in order to let more cattle graze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fejas Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 this isn't about central and south america... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PullinFool Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Jim said: take a read of "Fast Food Nation" and you'll never eat ground beef again. I just finished that book, and I still think organic beef slaughtered by the local butcher is fine. I will certainly never eat fast food again, but your point is a reactionary generalization at best. Besides, the author still likes In 'n Out Burger, or did you miss that at the end ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Fejas said: this isn't about central and south america... I realize that. My point is grazing cattle suck...wherever they are. It's not like threads dont drift from time to time around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fejas Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 don't get me wrong here... I don't think that a large number of cattle should graze all the nutrious vegitation off the BLM lands... but its for better reasons then, oh no I just steped in cow shit... I would appose it because of the deer,elk, and other wildlife, not something a selfish as save it for the humans... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted March 13, 2003 Author Share Posted March 13, 2003 Yea, go with the small beef producers if you can find them. Internet is helpful. And the cows do screw up the habitat for deer, elk, fish, etc. Intermountain areas (west of Rockies) did not evolve with large herds of grazers so the plants are particularly susceptible to cow damage. Elk and deer are primarily browsers (think shrubs) not grazers (think grass) and they never approached the density of the buffalo on the plains. Ecologicaly a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.