Are Wild Horses Native To Us? Blm View Challenged

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Actually it makes short term economicc sense.

[Vance]

Vance:

Yes degradation of feedstock fed to livestock does have an negative effect on the health and taste of the animal when slaughtered and eaten by humans.

What does this have to do with "the extremely wealthy"?

So, it behooves the producer to insure his product is adequately provided for. The producer has a financial incentive to not over graze his own land or under feed his own stock.

Got it.

[LeSellers]

Actually it makes short term economicc sense.

But the land owner is not interested in "short-term economic sense". He owns the land perpetually. If he wants to continue using it, or even to sell it, it must be kept in the best condition possible.

The use of land for any reason "destroys" it. But only when there is no incentive to maintain and replenish it does it make sense to do so. Ownership provides that incentive. Leasing does not (in most cases), and certainly a commons does not.

(Sorry about the derail. This has nothing to do with wild horses, except, as with all things, the government—BLM in this case—got it wrong, again.)

Lehi

[bluebell]

Since we all benefit from lower beef prices, it is hardly the case that this only benefits the "extremely wealthy". Moreover, to buy the land, the "extremely wealthy" would have to spend their money. They'd become less cash wealthy, and would have to pay more in property taxes (which I object to, but that's yet another story).

You are assuming that people will buy the land and ranch it. Much private land is put to no ecomonic use at all.

Regardless though, i just don't favor any solution which takes land away from the public and offers it to the extremely wealthy to own. Maybe it's the native american in me that doesn't like the idea of people owning large tracts of land just because they can (that also though, is another story).

[Vance]

It is my opinion that they care more about the money they make through livestock, than they do about the health of the land.

Then they have a natural incentive to take care of the land AND their livestock.

When did i say or imply this?

Well, your over concern for what other people do with their own property indicated that you were of the nanny state mind set. If that is not the impression you want to give, perhaps you should concern yourself less with what other people do with their property.

(And just for informational purposes, grazing rights on public land are personal property.)

One ranch near here has been in business for close to a hundred years i believe, so it seems to work for them. They own thousands of acres and lease government land as well.

So, then in reality it is simply your opinion that they are abusing the land. Got it.

The ranch is actually owned right now by a Frenchman, who doesn't live here in the US.

And this is relevant, how?

It's my opinion that he does not care about the health of the land as much as he does about the money he is making.

So, he is neglecting his own financial interest because of his financial interest?

I say this with some knowledge about the kind of person this man is.

And this is relevant, how?

Why do you have such bad reading comprehension?

Do you not recognize a rhetorical question?

[Vance]

Lehi:

Actually it makes short term economicc sense.

????

So, destroying the resale value of the land "makes short term economic sense"?

[thesometimesaint]

Now That David Koch Is Gone From NIH Cancer Board, Formaldehyde Is Finally Classified As A Carcinogen

What's that word they use for a society where the group of those with money and power are above the law? Oh, that's right: Oligarchy! While this regulatory capture continued, how many of us filled up our homes with these toxic products? Via Think Progress:

Large manufacturers and chemical producers have lobbied ferociously to stop the National Institutes of Health from classifying formaldehyde as a carcinogen. A wide body of research has linked the chemical to cancer, but industrial polluters have stymied regulators from action.

Last year, the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer reported that billionaire David Koch, whose company Georgia Pacific (a subsidiary of Koch Industries) is one of the country’s top producers of formaldehyde, was appointed to the NIH cancer board at a time when the NIH delayed action on the chemical. The news was met with protests from environmental groups. Faced with mounting pressure from Greenpeace and the scientific community, Koch offered an early resignation from the board in October.

Yesterday, the NIH finally handed down a report officially classifying formaldehyde as a carcinogen:

Government scientists listed formaldehyde as a carcinogen, and said it is found in worrisome quantities in plywood, particle board, mortuaries and hair salons. They also said that styrene, which is used in boats, bathtubs and in disposable foam plastic cups and plates, may cause cancer but is generally found in such low levels in consumer products that risks are low. Frequent and intense exposures in manufacturing plants are far more worrisome than the intermittent contact that most consumers have, but government scientists said that consumers should still avoid contact with formaldehyde and styrene along with six other chemicals that were added Friday to the government’s official Report on Carcinogens. Its release was delayed for years because of intense lobbying from the chemical industry, which disputed its findings.

An investigation by ProPublica found that Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and James Inhofe (R-OK) had used their power to add years of delay to the report. The piece linked Vitter to lobbying from Koch’s Georgia Pacific company, which has plywood plants in Louisiana.

I guess now we know why Republicans weren't pushing David Vitter to resign.

Tags: David Koch, formaldehyde, National Institutes of Health

Ps:

You've never heard of slash and burn farming?

[bluebell]

Then they have a natural incentive to take care of the land AND their livestock.

Not really. They have an incentive to care of the land to the extent that their livestock will survive on it. That, however, does not automatically mean they are 'taking care of the land'.

Think of it in terms of people who prostitute women. They have a financial incentive to take care of the women, because they make money off of them. That does not mean though, that their definition of 'taking care of' a woman is actually taking care of them. Taking care of a woman so that she can sleep with men, is far different than doing what is actual best for the woman.

The same applies here. Taking care of the land so that it will keep cattle alive is not the same thing as doing what is best for the land or the ecosystem.

Well, your over concern for what other people do with their own property indicated that you were of the nanny state mind set. If that is not the impression you want to give, perhaps you should concern yourself less with what other people do with their property.

Show me what i said that can be construed as 'over concern' about what people do with their private property? This is an official CFR, because i honestly think you are having most of this conversation in your head and then asking me to answer for it.

So, then in reality it is simply your opinion that they are abusing the land. Got it.

Well, duh Vance. Haven't you been paying attention at all?

And this is relevant, how?

Based on your questions, i didn't think whether or not something was relevant mattered.

Do you not recognize a rhetorical question?

Do you not recognize when someone is making fun of a really bad rhetorical question?

[bluebell]

Now That David Koch Is Gone From NIH Cancer Board, Formaldehyde Is Finally Classified As A Carcinogen

What's that word they use for a society where the group of those with money and power are above the law? Oh, that's right: Oligarchy! While this regulatory capture continued, how many of us filled up our homes with these toxic products? Via Think Progress:

Large manufacturers and chemical producers have lobbied ferociously to stop the National Institutes of Health from classifying formaldehyde as a carcinogen. A wide body of research has linked the chemical to cancer, but industrial polluters have stymied regulators from action.

Last year, the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer reported that billionaire David Koch, whose company Georgia Pacific (a subsidiary of Koch Industries) is one of the country’s top producers of formaldehyde, was appointed to the NIH cancer board at a time when the NIH delayed action on the chemical. The news was met with protests from environmental groups. Faced with mounting pressure from Greenpeace and the scientific community, Koch offered an early resignation from the board in October.

Yesterday, the NIH finally handed down a report officially classifying formaldehyde as a carcinogen:

Government scientists listed formaldehyde as a carcinogen, and said it is found in worrisome quantities in plywood, particle board, mortuaries and hair salons. They also said that styrene, which is used in boats, bathtubs and in disposable foam plastic cups and plates, may cause cancer but is generally found in such low levels in consumer products that risks are low. Frequent and intense exposures in manufacturing plants are far more worrisome than the intermittent contact that most consumers have, but government scientists said that consumers should still avoid contact with formaldehyde and styrene along with six other chemicals that were added Friday to the government’s official Report on Carcinogens. Its release was delayed for years because of intense lobbying from the chemical industry, which disputed its findings.

An investigation by ProPublica found that Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and James Inhofe (R-OK) had used their power to add years of delay to the report. The piece linked Vitter to lobbying from Koch’s Georgia Pacific company, which has plywood plants in Louisiana.

I guess now we know why Republicans weren't pushing David Vitter to resign.

Tags: David Koch, formaldehyde, National Institutes of Health

Ps:

You've never heard of slash and burn farming?

If you are copying and pasting this info TSS, you need to give sources and put in quotes. It's really hard to tell when you are talking and when you are quoting someone.

Also, you're going to get this thread shut down if you have to make it about politics.

[Vance]

Not really. They have an incentive to care of the land to the extent that their livestock will survive on it. That, however, does not automatically mean they are 'taking care of the land'.

For the livestock to simply "survive"? There is no incentive for that. See above.

Besides, some people don't take care of their own house, car, or (insert persona property item here). That doesn't mean that they don't have an incentive to do so. Do you also over concern yourself with how your neighbors take care of their personal property or is your concern only limited to "the extremely wealthy" land owner?

Think of it in terms of people who prostitute women. They have a financial incentive to take care of the women, because they make money off of them. That does not mean though, that their definition of 'taking care of' a woman is actually taking care of them. Taking care of a woman so that she can sleep with men, is far different than doing what is actual best for the woman.

I thought we were talking about personal property. Sorry but this doesn't apply, unless you think that women can be personal property.

The landowner's (mis)treatment of his own property doesn't negatively affect the personal well being of others any where near as much as it affects himself. I don't think you can say that about a pimp.

The same applies here. Taking care of the land so that it will keep cattle alive is not the same thing as doing what is best for the land or the ecosystem.

Sorry but taking starved, but alive, cattle to auction is not much of a financial incentive.

Plump critters are worth more because they taste better and are more tender.

But, you still come across as overly obsessed with what other people do with their own property.

Show me what i said that can be construed as 'over concern' about what people do with their private property? This is an official CFR, because i honestly think you are having most of this conversation in your head and then asking me to answer for it.

See your previous sentence.

Well, duh Vance. Haven't you been paying attention at all?

Possibly.

Or maybe I have just been reading what you are writing.

Based on your questions, i didn't think whether or not something was relevant mattered.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Can you explain why the nationality of the landowner is relevant to this discussion?

Do you not recognize when someone is making fun of a really bad rhetorical question?

I recognize when someone doesn't get the point being made by a really good rhetorical question.

[LeSellers]

You've never heard of slash and burn farming?

Of course we have.

But slash and burn farming relies on the farmer's not owning the land he burns. He moves on.

Even he, however, knows that, in several years, he can come back and do it again because, by that time, the land will have replenished itself (having lain fallow for that time).

If he owned the land, however, he would not slash nor burn. He'd tend it and make it useful.

BTW, when someone one does not use a piece of land "productively", I point out that, for him, that is the highest and best use of the land. You and I may not agree, but for him, it is. Were it not so, he'd use it differently. We cannot measure all good things with money. It's useful for many things, but not for all of them.

It's his property, and he can use it as he sees fit. That's the nature of property rights: the rest of us need to keep our noses out of the other guy's business.

Lehi

[bluebell]

For the livestock to simply "survive"? There is no incentive for that. See above.

Besides, some people don't take care of their own house, car, or (insert persona property item here). That doesn't mean that they don't have an incentive to do so. Do you also over concern yourself with how your neighbors take care of their personal property or is your concern only limited to "the extremely wealthy" land owner?

I thought we were talking about personal property. Sorry but this doesn't apply, unless you think that women can be personal property.

The landowner's (mis)treatment of his own property doesn't negatively affect the personal well being of others any where near as much as it affects himself. I don't think you can say that about a pimp.

Sorry but taking starved, but alive, cattle to auction is not much of a financial incentive.

Plump critters are worth more because they taste better and are more tender.

But, you still come across as overly obsessed with what other people do with their own property.

See your previous sentence.

Possibly.

Or maybe I have just been reading what you are writing.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Can you explain why the nationality of the landowner is relevant to this discussion?

I recognize when someone doesn't get the point being made by a really good rhetorical question.

We're done Vance.

[bluebell]

It's his property, and he can use it as he sees fit. That's the nature of property rights: the rest of us need to keep our noses out of the other guy's business.

Lehi

I agree. As long as he's following the law, of course.

When it comes to commenting on public land being made private though, there is good reason to voice opinion since the public land in question IS our business.

[Vance]

I agree. As long as he's following the law, of course.

When it comes to commenting on public land being made private though, there is good reason to voice opinion since the public land in question IS our business.

Yeah, BUT the grazing rights AREN'T. Grazing rights to public land ARE personal property. They were initially intended to ALWAYS be so. If you don't like the way people are using their personal property (grazing rights) feel free to purchase them at a far market value.

[Hestia]

I guess now we know why Republicans weren't pushing David Vitter to resign.

Please stop politicizing everything. Last warning.

[ERayR]

I live next to yellowstone, where buffalo herds are plentiful. What they do to the land and what cattle do to the land isn't comparable. Buffalo are not forced to congregate around water tanks put in by ranchers-they are free to roam over larger areas of land and therefore have less impact on any given area. The same with food. Buffalo do not strip the land down until it's barren the way cattle will because buffalo are not managed the same way that cattle are.

Good luck with that.

Those herds are in very cotrolled numbers. Take a trip to eastern Colorado or into Kansas, perhaps even into Oklahoma and Texas. I have seen buffalo wallows that are still visable after over a hundred and fifty years. Don't kid yourself buffalo herds caused massive environmental damage. In most range areas where people graze cattle the range as a whole is in better shape than it was a hundred years ago. It is called range management.

[bluebell]

Those herds are in very cotrolled numbers. Take a trip to eastern Colorado or into Kansas, perhaps even into Oklahoma and Texas. I have seen buffalo wallows that are still visable after over a hundred and fifty years. Don't kid yourself buffalo herds caused massive environmental damage. In most range areas where people graze cattle the range as a whole is in better shape than it was a hundred years ago. It is called range management.

1st-the bison herd isn't 'controlled' in Yellowstone. YNP has a policy of 'natural regulation' which means that the herd functions without human interferance unless human interferance has required intervention (like when a car hits a buffalo, for example).

2nd-the bison herd in yellowstone is the biggest bison herd in the US. As i understand it, it has approx. 3500 members whereas the next largest bison herd has approx. 700. If the herds you are talking about are that small and causing that much damage, then it's the management of the herd that is the problem, not the animal. And that would illustrate my point-that human management often does not do what is best for the land.

I'm also guessing that some of those herds you are talking about are actually privately owned and therefore can't really be compared to wild animal herds.

And i agree, the range land is getting better. That's not because grazing cattle is good for it though, it's because people are taking better care of it than they did 100 years ago.

[LeSellers]

i agree, the range land is getting better. That's not because grazing cattle is good for it though, it's because people are taking better care of it than they did 100 years ago.

Yes, people are taking better care of lands now than when it was "free range". The reason is that owners always take better care of their property than they would were they not owners.

That's why renters have a hard time transiting from renting to home ownership: they haven't developed an understanding of ownership. But it usually doesn't take too long for them to acquire that sense, because they now have a vested interest in maintaining the property whereas, before, they had none: the landlord always fixed it, maintained it, took care of it. (Unless rent control made it unsound to do so. Another example of government screwing things up.)

As I noted earlier, any use of the land destroys it (in your terms), so if we want anything from the land, including meat, it "isn't good for it". But if we want anything from the land for a long period of time, we need to "replenish the earth". Private ownership promotes replenishment. Public ownership does not.

Lehi

[Vance]

Those herds are in very cotrolled numbers. Take a trip to eastern Colorado or into Kansas, perhaps even into Oklahoma and Texas. I have seen buffalo wallows that are still visable after over a hundred and fifty years. Don't kid yourself buffalo herds caused massive environmental damage. In most range areas where people graze cattle the range as a whole is in better shape than it was a hundred years ago. It is called range management.

Yup! The numbers are somewhat controlled. If they weren't then Yellowstone would also be "overgrazed".

The limited habitat available in YNP is currently estimated to sustainably support only 2,000 — 2,200 buffalo according to retired YNP biologist Mary Meagher. In 2005-06 there are approximately 4,900 animals. This is about 3,000 more animals than there is food available. Due to high altitude and heavy snow cover, YNP is not suitable habitat for bison. They follow old migration patterns and leave the national park searching for grass. As they cross this artificial boundary they are hazed back into the national park, corralled and slaughtered or shot.

. . .

The management of the Yellowstone National Park buffalo herd has been under the control of the Montana Department of Livestock, the National Park Service, the US Department of Homeland Security and APHIS (Animal and Plant Protection Health Inspection Services).

http://www.yellowstonebuffalofoundation.org/

Bison from Yellowstone National Park will roam freely across 75,000 acres in southern Montana where for years the animals were shipped to slaughter by the hundreds, under a breakthrough agreement expected to be adopted this week.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42456096/

[bluebell]

Most of the park is in Wyoming (96% of the park, with 3% in Montana and 1% in Idaho), and wyoming does not haze. In fact, a small herd of bison live outside of the park boundaries most of the year not far from my home town-they stampeded through our camping site two years ago and it was quite a sight. Normally, they just laze around.

The websites linked by vance are not trustworthy sources of correct information. And yes, the bison numbers ARE controlled-by natural predators and mother nature. They aren't controlled by the park though. Only in montana, when they leave the park, are they 'managed'.

Also, contrary to what the link said, the YNP herd is one of 4 herds that roam freely.

Montana hazes specifically because of the cattle ranchers, who fear disease that would make their beef unsellable. Management of this natural resource, in montana, is determined by what is best for the cattle ranchers, not what is best for the animals or the ecosystem.

It's a point of contention every year here.

Edit to add: I should clarify and state that not all of montana hazes the bison back into the park. I believe only one of the three entrances that are in montana haze. The northeast entrance by Cooke City doesn't and neither does the west entrance by West Yellowstone. You can frequently find bison outside of the park at both entrances. If the bison tried to leave the areas and migrate toward ranching country, i don't know what they would do. There is land leased to ranchers in both areas but it doesn't seem to be an issue. It's the north entrance, by Gardner (which is located in a valley that is almost entirely ranched i believe) where most of the trouble stems it seems.

[Log]

P.S.: Just because Teddy Roosevelt (and all presidents since, and many before) ignored the Constitution is no reason to continue breaking the law. LS

Actually, it is. It's even got a name: "Precedence."

... might even be a good girl's name.

[Vance]

The websites linked by vance are not trustworthy sources of correct information.

Nothing like a bald assertion.

And yes, the bison numbers ARE controlled-by natural predators and mother nature.

So, when they "overgraze" the park, then they die of starvation or leave, right?

They aren't controlled by the park though.

Irrelevant.

Only in montana, when they leave the park, are they 'managed'.

Why do they leave? To find food?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So uh, what does this have to do with "Replying to Are Wild Horses Native To Us? Blm View Challenged".

All this talk about controlling horses and bison and stuff. Are we all just bored? Lol. Carry on.

[LeSellers]

Actually, it is.

Long habit does not alter the quality of what is right or wrong. They are unchangeable.

It's even got a name: "Precedence."

... might even be a good girl's name.

Only if her father is a lawyer, a judge, or a Senator on the Judiciary Committee.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

But it is intereting to watch.