Outdoors News Stories

Absarokanaut said:
RIP folks.

Federal Land Exchanges sometimes trouble me. Yeah, I think both parties should indeed benefit ,but it seems that almost always the benefits seem to greatly favor the private party and ultimately the rest of us get...well you know. Although some are quite dated I think the related stories at the bottom of the page are quite pertinent.

http://www.hcn.org/articles/a-public-land-swap-for-the-super-rich?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email
Click to expand...
This is what concerns me about trades like this (quotes from the article; bold mine):

“'Somebody who has a lot of money is able to make this kind of proposal and get a lot of what they want. Legally.'

The question is whether that’s how things should be. Froelicher and other members of Colorado Wild Public Lands don’t think so. Anne Rickenbaugh, a founding member of the group and a former trustee at the Pitkin Country Open Spaces and Trails program, says she worries that unfair exchanges can hurt public lands, rather than help them. This exchange is one of the bad ones, she says. 'I see the potential for this happening a lot more often, and I see a really negative impact on the way we use and access our public land. And it just bothers me that these people have the resources to come in and organize the universe exactly the way they want it.'”
 
And I get in trouble with ranchers when I say, remove the even more non-native cows off our public lands and take care of them on your own private property without leaning on my dime. :) I'm a longtime horse lover, and I'm not a huge fan of the way they do the wild horse roundups in terms of the stress to the horses, but the overall Western range management situation is indeed rather precarious at the moment. However, if cows were legally required to be taken off the rangelands, there would be massive screaming from the ranchers.

The near extinction of wolves in the lower 48 also did not help matters, as wolves (as well as mountain lions) preyed on wild horses for centuries and naturally helped keep herds in check. But since now it's all about the cattle for the savviest/loudest/heaviest political lobbyists whose interests skew sharply in that direction, along with other applicable factors, well, guess what? Here is the currently untenable rangeland management situation we face today. Let me tell you, tourists love seeing the wild horse herds in places like the San Rafael Swell. Cows, not so much.

Horse slaughter dismays many. It dismays me when perfectly sound and/or trainable horses are shipped off to slaughter in horrible trailering conditions and often horrible slaughter conditions. I believe every life is worthy, although I also believe it is not necessary to keep breeding bad horse genetics into the equine population, which many backyard breeders (and even some professional breeders) seem intent on doing out of ignorance, stubbornness, or some sort of egotism. If only wild horse adoptions (to truly good & knowledgeable horsepeople) could be required for the next five years, and no horse breeding allowed in this country. Yeah....hahahaha! Anyway, very divisive topic with many layers to it, and seemingly no easy answers on any of it.
 
I think it was in Herrero's book that he said no one had ever been killed after successfully deploying bear spray. That could be an old stat, but I don't know.

Feel free to spray me accidentally while trying to save my life, but please don't shoot me.
 
I take a wiped clean can of bearspray in my tent when I sleep. Will I hesitate to spray myself to avoid from getting mauled? Of course not. If the wind is whipping in my face? Yeah, I'll take it over getting sliced in the brisket or anywhere else.

Bearspray's biggest problem with getting people to accept it is a far better option than conventional ammunition is testosterone, too many ignoramuses convinced having what they mistake to be [likely] lethal response as opposed to something Alaska F&G statistics demonstrate to be far more effective. How sad how many of us think we have to be able to kill to defend ourselves.

Julie,

As to ranching on public lands: There's a simple solution IMO. Instead of, IMO, doing next to nothing but circulating online petitions organizations like Defenders of Wildlife could still do the few photo ops and tag along lawsuits they do and still have MILLIONS to purchase and retire cattle leases. Taking in more than $30,000,000 a year I am with all due respect disappointed with how Defenders goes about it's "mission."

Horse advocates could secure ranges for mustangs. However hard it is for some of us to accept sometimes the things we think should just be simply have a price that must be paid lest civilization regress and bring even worse consequences.

As to the cruelty of slaughter: Having put down a few loved horses myself I know it does not come easy. However if you've been to a BLM holding facility like me I can't see how you'd possibly not want to get rid of every one as expediently as possible. With all due respect to you and a lot of my friends Julie IMO if the predominantly emotional objection to slaughter were overcome, of course with ensuring ethical oversights for transport, etc., we'd again have a mechanism to make life on the range far better for all wild horses. As much as so many emotionally object out of hand IMO slaughter would logically remain as a balancing mechanism for always finite habitats however expanded real investment in more habitat might be. Slaughter would quickly stop most well meaning folks from turning their aged, diseased horses loose on public land.

So we both have a different take on this, hope you can appreciate my honest one however much you might disagree with it.

Respectfully,

John
 
Oh yeah, Langutah,

Truly amazing. With pups now being born outside the regional 3 state release area wolves are indeed thriving in the Northern Rockies and branching westward and to the south. I however just continue to believe wolves will not thrive in places like Colorado and Utah simply because of two things:

1) There is nothing there like the 19,000,000+ acres of Greater Yellowstone, the greatest mammalian habitat of the Temperate Zone, elsewhere in the conterminous American West.

2) I know little of Utah but lived in Colorado for a long time. Although USFWS studies assert Colorado can support hundreds if not a thousand wolves I disagree having observed wolves here in the GYE and knowing the history of litigation; with checker-boarded habitats of at most just a few million acres I don't think enough Coloradans would tolerate the far more aggressive management than we have here in the GYE that would be required to maintain even smaller and more isolated populations than the one many Americans see as to small here in the GYE despite the fact its more than 5 times the most optimistic of original qualified projections.
 
I see the real problem with giving any wildlife "range" is 1) humans......most don't want critters that can eat you in 'their' backyard... put them next to someone elses and 2) after they are secure on their range is the management of them so the population does not exceed the capacity. Usually that means some form of hunting. Take wild horses in Utah for instance. I have hunted areas where they are running. The areas they utilize are generally eat to s**t and there is very little native wildlife around.

I think generally most organizations are more concerned about job security, administrative costs and seeing how much cash they can get, more than wanting to fund more than just a few projects. Most are to narrow focused on issues. And yes there are some organizations out there that do good, but I think its a minority.
 
Bob said:
I see the real problem with giving any wildlife "range" is 1) humans......most don't want critters that can eat you in 'their' backyard... put them next to someone elses and 2) after they are secure on their range is the management of them so the population does not exceed the capacity. Usually that means some form of hunting. Take wild horses in Utah for instance. I have hunted areas where they are running. The areas they utilize are generally eat to s**t and there is very little native wildlife around.

I think generally most organizations are more concerned about job security, administrative costs and seeing how much cash they can get, more than wanting to fund more than just a few projects. Most are to narrow focused on issues. And yes there are some organizations out there that do good, but I think its a minority.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. At one time I was a member of several of the large "conservation" organizations, but other than a lot of litigation, little of it actually effective, they are most concerned with self promotion and little actual work happens on the ground. The same can not be said for groups like Trout Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and similar wild life groups where most of the money is put to the ground or for some of the smaller groups dedicated to specific areas. My current favorite is the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Foundation which does an amazing job with next to nothing.
http://www.abwilderness.org/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob
+1 .......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top