Ranchers Win Big

Eastern Arizona Courrier ^ | January 24, 2002 | Tom Jackson King

[editor-surveyor]

I'm not so sure that this is as big of a win as they think.

[editor-surveyor]

This is only 3 judges out of the most liberal district court in the country

[cascademountaineer]

Great post, thanks for the heads up, I feel a bump coming on!

[Utah Girl]

Wait, so the endangered species does not have to be present, just the likelihood that they might be present in the future is enough to trigger the law? Oh my. Just watch for those people who plant lynx hairs, they might be on their way to Arizona to plant minnows somewhere.

[RobRoy]

I'm sure if they look hard enough they can find some lynx hair somewhere. That'll shut down the grazing...

Oh, sarcasm off...

[kassie]

Thanks for the ping. Wouldn't have wanted to miss this.

[elbucko]

"Martin Taylor, coordinator of the grazing reform program for the Center for Biological Diversity, defended the agencies in their view that animals were harmed even when not present."

This guy is one of those Vegan-Socialists. He would like to have humans in a herd.

Of course, he'd be on his solar powered vehicle 'a crackin' a whip at us.

Good for the ranchers. I hope it sticks and they get their legal fees out of USFS and BLM.

[Leisler]

About 10 years ago, I had left seeing the Grand Canyon. I wanted to go west but the main road showed that it went south for a 100 miles or so, but there was a dirt road that would take me where I wanted to go. Anyways, I took it and more or less got lost. After many gates and cows I came across a small house with a man outside and he helped me out and I asked him if the land was his and he said that it wasn't, that it was owned by Bruce Babbit. At the time I remember that he wanted to shut down grazing on public land. Of course he did. As a large owner of private land he would benifit. Cattle production would drop and his cattle would get a higher price. Also, ranchers displaced from public land would have to rent land from him. Furthermore his land would be more valuable. Babbit, environmentalist greedhead. If you look behind socalled environmentalist and other lefties you find personal gain.

[elbucko]

You have "followed the money" and struck pay dirt.

The biggest secret of the "Grazing Rights" dipute is Bruce Babbit and the Democrats "collective greed".

[FreePaul]

Babbit, environmentalist greedhead.

Put him right up there with Sam Donaldson.

[sistergoldenhair]

Thanks for the ping
This may not be a big win, but it's a win.

[MARTIAL MONK]

The Babbit ranch is old (1889 IIRC) and big but Bruce's interest is negligable. There would be no significant economic advantage to Bruce from the grazing land closures. In fact the Babbit ranchs are legendary for their fights with the Navajo over grazing rights.

Bruce is a product of Harvard, not cattle country. He is a pure idealogue. I wish we could pin him for acting in his own self interest but it ain't there. The whole Babbit clan is known for their longevity in Northern Arizona and their "enterprising nature" (read shady) but on this one there is no there there.

[Zon]

This is only 3 judges out of the most liberal district court in the country.

That is impressive.

[MARTIAL MONK]

This is big. It is a win for the folks down on the Blue and the Gila Box but I think it signifies a much larger change of direction. This affects the environmentalists in their own backyard. These are two of the whacko's most prized areas. It may also reflect a shift from Janet Reno's strategy of lawyering people to death regardless of the legal merit.

[tubebender]

The enviros will never let up. Here in Humboldt County we now have an ordinance outlawing every thing from motorcycles, 4x4s, to horses, dogs, people walking on the beach, even kite flying! This is to protect the nesting Snowy Plover from March to Sept. They are coming after your recreation next...

[Leisler]

A. So it was family, not Bruce's?

[Phil V.]

Thanks for the ping. Out here in Kalifornia it's the red and yellow legged frogs - none to be found of course - the french bullfrogs killed 'em - along with the ducks unlimited and geese unlimited that eat the pollywogs. But they COULD be here so let's NOY BUILD ANYTHING! Sorry. 4,000,000 acres rendered useless/valueless . . .

[.38sw]

I'm wondering if this will have some effect on the Sierra Nevada Framework Decision which closes many areas to grazing due to such things as Willow Flycatchers, even where the bird hasn't been seen for some time. This will be interesting to follow.

[brityank]

It may not be as big a win, but the Judges have managed to put into precedence some very telling points that can be used in future cases.

[BLM & USFS] could not prohibit cattle grazing on public lands designated as "critical habitat" for endangered species, but where there is no sign any endangered species is currently living on the federal land.

... (the judges) said there has to be a causal connection, something that causes death or injury, ...

Notice that the term is causal, not casual -- which latter term is what the ESA and their greenie supporters have been using to evidence their 'taking' doctrine.

Then there is this interesting 'observation':

"The very absence of a species from otherwise suitable habitat, to a biologist, is an indication of ongoing harm due to habitat degradation." Martin Taylor, Center for Biological Diversity

Guess we all better watch out that head-lice aren't declared endangered, 'cause we will all get busted for having shampoo.

[DugwayDuke]

"The very absence of a species from otherwise suitable habitat, to a biologist, is an indication of ongoing harm due to habitat degradation."

This is like "global warming" where the absence of data supporting the theory is taken as evidence of the theory, ie, if it gets warmer it's global warming and if it gets colder it's global warming too. In this case, if there is a certain species there then it must be fenced off to protect the species, but if there is none of that species there then it must also be fenced off since??????