Posted on 12/05/2001 2:52:29 AM PST by brityank
I have seen land in National Parks stripped by buffalo who retire to private pasture to graze. I have seen land which might support one cow/calf unit per 10 acres with stringy mustangs trying to eke out a living==but no cattle. But most of the rough land I have seen was denuded not by overgrazing but the indigenous fauna. Some of it is just not conducive to growing much of anything--soil type, mineral content, lack of water, etc.. not grazing, just geology.
Where are you getting your information?
Eagles Up.
The land recovered, and the current crop of cattlemen are very careful to husband the resources their livelihoods depend on. I believe there is a correlation between beef prices and rainfall. Low rainfall, poor pastures, low beef prices because everyone is trimming their herds to keep from abusing their resources. In addition, large stockpiles of hay and assistance efforts (from one region to another with semi loads of hay) reduce the impact to the environment.
Old pictures and odd camera angles (the trampled area next to the water tank, for instance, are used to perpetuate the myth that land is being overgrazed, when in fact, little, if any is.
I share your concern for the world around us. I also believe that there is a way to continue to harvest the resources around us with minimal negative impact. Grass, trees, wild game, etc. can all be used without destroying the environment.
Many of the disasters of the past have been the result of ignorance, some of them 'damn it all economics'. The latter no longer works, the former is no longer an excuse.
Funny, your screen name is that of a bird I grew up watching every year in the tidewater of Maryland, where my ancestors and relatives have farmed for over 350 years--in part, through careful stewardship.
About the bidding though, I doubt it would go up only $.10 per acre, because there would be a few rounds of upped bidding.
Tax exempt is an interesting question, and it would need a change in the tax code, possibly a provision saying funds used to compete with for-profit organizations are not tax exempt.
Thanks for the information on Grazing. It sounds like you know quite alot about the subject.
Anyway, I live in Maryland right on the Chesapeake Bay. I watch the Ospreys return every March from down South. Eagles Up!
On the issue of food production and national security, though, isn't it true that a very small percentage of our national meat supply is produced on open Western rangeland? Isn't the vast majority feedlot produced in places like Arkansas? If so, doesn't this really remove this aspect of the debate? Correct me if I'm wrong.
The fact that the states owns this land (a means of production) is socialistic in itself. If you kick a rancher(and perhaps 6 or 7 hands) off a piece of land and let it lie fallow there are consequences beyond the price of the lease. It means that 8 people are not producing. It means that 8 families are not paying income tax. It means that 8 families are not spending money in town. It means that other producing businesses in town are gone or reduced. The lease is just one piece of the economic puzzle.
The maximum return doctrine was shortsighted in that it assumed that the land would remain in productive use. It did not foresee the rise of the nonproducers and their destructive power. It did not provide for the long term benefit of the state.
The state land covered by this ruling is arid. The environmentalists can out bid the ranchers on the sections which have water. Without water the remainder of the ranch is valueless. By bidding high on 1000 acres they can ensure that no one bids on another 50,000 acres. They can leverage minimal resources for maximum damage.
This ruling is not good news for anyone.
It is a local or regional economic issue. Is it to the state's advantage to shut down an industry which is one of the main pillars of economic support for rural areas? In outlying counties the welfare rate is very high and the workforce can be as high as 50% government workers. There is no room for absorption. A few extra dollars on selected leases has a very high price in the larger picture.
Unfortunately, the folks who make their living telling all of the "horrors" of little known and commonly misunderstood industries are not beyond twisting the facts and magnifying any mistakes.
When we do right, no one notices, if we do wrong, no one forgets.
All in all, the scrutiny has had a positive effect. It has kept the hucksters and the fly by night types out of the arena, for the most part, and required reclamation bonds and the like to pay for fixing any messes made by the few who squeak through. The rest of the industry has no use for the bad press and guilt by association that comes from being associated with the unscrupulous, so it doesn't take long for them to be squeezed out.
While this is no guarantee that it will always remain so, the scrutiny helps.
"Creating" disasters where there are none for the purpose of gaining funding and political power has, unfortunately, become the hallmark of many former conservation groups. These groups will never admit that things can be done right. They keep moving the bar, ramping up standards, even when there is no scientific basis for the change.
Where I grew up, there were people who cared for their land who were farming that land. If you just put a house and a lawn on your land, how well do you know it? Try growing a garden for a different perspective. Suddenly changes in pH, soil type, drainage, organic content, all become important. One part of your property might grow great tomatoes, another part might not grow them at all (too wet, too much clay, etc.) You gain an entirely different perspective. Apply that standard to hundreds of acres of grassland, and topography, water sources, soil types, vegetation types and density all become relevant and important. You are not looking at the view, but the land. Huge difference.
Feedlots will buy the calves, then feed them in preparation for eventual slaughter. So you see you could have a steer that was range raised and then sent to a feedlot.
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.