Posted on 08/03/2009 11:45:58 AM PDT by jazusamo
More often than not I worry that our elected representatives in Washington DC have completely lost touch with the common man.
They spend money like there is no limit to the amount that can be provided by the American taxpayer and when we complain, they treat us like we are idiots. They talk down to us and with a smile and a pat on the back tell us not to worry they are looking out for our best interest.
So far I have had to exempt Lynn Westmoreland from this criticism. Maybe he hasn't been inside the Beltway long enough to be corrupted. Maybe, just maybe, he's the actual personification of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
By in large the problem in Washington can be laid right at the feet of the thousands of paid lobbyists who make their living (and very good ones at that) by convincing the members of Congress that some bill their clients want passed is the best thing since sliced bread.
In years past I have made trips to Washington as part of a delegation representing the Farm Bureau Federation of Georgia.
During our three-day jaunt we visit with the representatives and senators from Georgia who represent us in our nation's capitol. In all honesty we are lobbyists. But we are grassroots lobbyists - unpaid volunteers who attempt to get the message across to congressional members that agriculture is as important to the welfare of this nation as defense. Maybe more so. For without food and clothing, all the armies in the world won't do us any good.
Allow me to get back on subject here.
I'm a horse person. Have been most all of my life. I don't care who you are, or who you think you are, there's no one in this country who cares more about Equus Caballus than me.
In recent years, however, a few fringe groups have attempted to hijack our Congress into passing bills that are loosely designed to protect the horse, but actually do more harm than good.
There are the various bills designed to prevent the harvesting of horses for meat. That's a hot issue in many animal-lover circles. But I won't go into that.
Today's topic is the so-called wild horse that roams the lands in our nation's west. The trouble is that the likelihood that there actually are any wild horses out West is problematic. Sure there are some horses running wild, but they aren't what we call truly wild horses.
Suppose some cattle got away from a herd and wandered freely across the rangeland in the Western United States. Would they be wild cattle. If they had calves, would the calves be wild? No, they would be feral cattle, and their offspring, that had escaped from domestic herds.
That is the case in most all of the "wild horse" herds that roam on federal land. The herds are destructive. They over-graze the range land. They take food out of the mouths of cattle that are raised to feed our nation's population.
Moreover, they take food that would otherwise be available for the real wild animal population, animals that are truly wild and have been living in this land long before the humans and the horses came.
I'm likely as much of a romantic as any one out there reading this. That's just a part of the cowboy makeup. There is something to be said for seeing a herd of "wild horses" running free. But there's just as much to be said for a herd of buffalo (bison), elk or antelope.
There are too many "wild" horses on our federal lands. Efforts by Congress, conservationists and animal lovers to control the population and lessen the damage to our environment by these free-ranging herds have largely been unsuccessful.
Now there is a move afoot to put more land under federal control so that even more "wild" horses can live in the West. For more than 40 years the wild horse and burro population has been federally protected. But the herds have grown unmanageable.
So, the answer, according to a bill that has passed the House and is headed for the Senate, is to spend $700 million to acquire more land -- more land that will eventually lead to even larger unmanageable herds that will eventually need even more land. People are out of work. They are losing their houses. The country is deeply in debt. Congressional leaders and the Obama Administration are spending billions of dollars on programs that some politicians think are unnecessary.
And now a bill comes along and passes the Democrat-controlled House to spend millions more acquiring land so more and more feral horses can roam the western United States just so some animal lovers can one day say, "I saw this magnificent herd of wild horses running free while I was on vacation out west."
If they were truly wild horses, those who are direct descendants of the ones brought over the Spanish in the 1500s, then maybe I could see. But they aren't. They are feral horses. There is a difference. And they aren't worth another $700 million of our tax money.
And that comes from a person who loves horses and has for more than 50 years.
(Kerlin’s family roots go back generations in southwestern Fayette County. He’s a regular columnist for this newspaper)
They run around. Out in the open. If people want to push them aside in order to make room for some politically-connected rancher to gather up a government freebie, they should at least be honest about it.
Do you watch Monk? I love horses (I have owned a few). I also love cats (many have owned me). I see no problem with a catch, nurture, release program with horses, anymore with the same program for cats.
Have you even seen the land you are crying about? I ain’t some lush Kentucky horse farm. My guess is 30 acres per cow. What are the ranches “stealing” the lease for an acre? What would you contend the annual value per acre is?
The difference between horse grazing and cattle grazing, as someone previously pointed out, is that horses tend to pull up the grass plant and killing it whereas cattle bite the grass off like your lawnmower and leaving the plant intact.
I suspect that facts are not anything you are concerned with and just being argumentative.
Well, let's see: the rancher pays one dollar a month (or is it two, now?) to place one cow and one calf on your land. He sells the cow and calf for x dollars. Does he earn much more than $12.00 or $24.00 (assuming the lease runs one year)?
Which do you think is a closer approximation of the value of the land, the $12.00 or $24.00, or something approaching x?
Don't forget, x is just the number for one cow/calf unit. In order to get an idea of the revenue generated by your land you need to multiply x by the number of cow/calf units he keeps on your land.
And I responded that the horse is not being replaced by the cow at a 1:1 ratio, since the subject was damage being caused.
rudedude you need to check in with your Dr., your meds are needing recalibration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.