Environmentalists Call for Fair Grazing Fees

HULTGREN arne at snowcrest.net
Tue Mar 16 01:23:36 EST 1999


Come on up to Mt. Shasta and check out the piles of shit these gentle human
walkers leave in the wilderness area.
Cattle allotments are rigidly controlled. It they start making serious
erosion (or other) problems, the local Range Officer says bring 'em in for
the year. He also says when to let them out. These permits are reviewed
every 10 years, and get pretty tough scrutiny up here. And of course the
local enviros summarily appeal all the EA's for the allotments.

There ain't all that much grass up in the mountains. And once you stop a
rancher from grazing for a few years, they're sunk. Because you need to have
the older cows show the younger cows how-and-where to get food, and
generally survive. The cows actually graze for only about 4 months, max,
around here. They go back home to the ranches for the fall-winter-spring.

And what is "Fair Market Value"? You must compare apples with apples. Is the
value being proposed includes greater forage production, cross fencing,
handy watering troughs, easy drive-up access for supervision...

I can put you in touch with some ranchers that graze on public allotments if
you'd like to learn something. Let's see how your knowledge of the issues
squares with theirs? How about it????

Joseph Zorzin <redoak at forestmeister.com> wrote in message
news:36ECE252.DFE41556 at forestmeister.com...
>TREES4WOOD wrote:
>>
>> >Recreation uses do NOT
>> >cause damage to the public lands; or at least, very little.
>>
>> I beg to differ.  If you go to the Bob Marshall wilderness in Montana,
the main
>> access trail is literally five feet below the ground surface because of
>> recreationists who insist on horse packing in.  It is one heck of a site
to
>> see.  Also what about the ORV users who are tearing up the deserts and
other
>> landscapes?  Finally, the issue of roads.  The USFS does not build roads
for
>> recreation uses, they utilize existing logging roads and maintain them
for
>> tourists (which by the way comes out of the timber budget).
>
>OK. It's a matter of definition. By my definition- I only include soft
>walking hikers. I forgot about those who insist on going into nature on
>big animals or big machines. <G>
>
>Even walkers can cause damage, but nothing compared to skidders or huge
>herds of cattle.





More information about the Ag-forst mailing list