The Green Scam of “Endangered Species”

[AspenBud]

It seems the real issue is removing all ranchers, the fee issue is only being used as a reason to remove this rancher. The real intention seems very obvious since the other 52 ranchers who tried to follow the law have already been removed.   

Seems there should be diplomatic ways to resolve this rather than creating marshall law and sending in Blackhawk helicopters and snipers. Some managers need to be replaced.

BLM buys up all the ranches around him and when he refuses to sell they bring in the ESA Tortis? This really shows the fraud and corruption of the ESA does't it?

Would it have been better if they had never mentioned the tortoise and simply said there is a grazing fee to pay...because they said so? I fail to see the difference. The Fed owns the land and they can, heh, do whatever they want with it including charging grazing fees.

[j_h_nimrod]

It seems the real issue is removing all ranchers, the fee issue is only being used as a reason to remove this rancher. The real intention seems very obvious since the other 52 ranchers who tried to follow the law have already been removed.   

Seems there should be diplomatic ways to resolve this rather than creating marshall law and sending in Blackhawk helicopters and snipers. Some managers need to be replaced.

BLM buys up all the ranches around him and when he refuses to sell they bring in the ESA Tortis? This really shows the fraud and corruption of the ESA does't it?

Would it have been better if they had never mentioned the tortoise and simply said there is a grazing fee to pay...because they said so? I fail to see the difference. The Fed owns the land and they can, heh, do whatever they want with it including charging grazing fees.

The Fed does not own the land, we do and allow them to administer it. At least that is the way it is supposed to be, though more and more people have been convinced that the Govt is a person, own the land, and allows us to use it if, and only if, they want to.

[bearpaw]

Yes the guy owes the public some grazing fees, he should pay something. Negotiate some terms for a continuing lease provided he pays a negotiated settlement. Then let's talk about the other 52 ranchers that have been eliminated.

[bearpaw]

It seems the real issue is removing all ranchers, the fee issue is only being used as a reason to remove this rancher. The real intention seems very obvious since the other 52 ranchers who tried to follow the law have already been removed.   

Seems there should be diplomatic ways to resolve this rather than creating marshall law and sending in Blackhawk helicopters and snipers. Some managers need to be replaced.

BLM buys up all the ranches around him and when he refuses to sell they bring in the ESA Tortis? This really shows the fraud and corruption of the ESA does't it?

Would it have been better if they had never mentioned the tortoise and simply said there is a grazing fee to pay...because they said so? I fail to see the difference. The Fed owns the land and they can, heh, do whatever they want with it including charging grazing fees.

There would be a difference, the other 52 ranchers would still be operating, but since the tortoise is involved nobody will be allowed to ranch. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

How much are the grazing fees per animal unit? In general, public land grazing is a LOSER financially for the public.  The Colville NF leases are a joke...  The ranchers pay literally pennies per acre and the cows wipe out a ton of habitat, trees, and riparian buffers. 
We are dealing with that very thing right now in the Leclerc Cr. Drainage in PO county.  The rancher leases the ENTIRE place for ~$600 per year and the Power Company is on the hook to restore the streams.  Now, the ratepayers are subsidizing the rancher.  I do not agree with that.

I don't know the story on this Bundy guy.  It appears that the Feds are being pretty heavy handed, but the guy is clearly not paying his cost (or the REAL COST...see above) for his lease... get the damn cows out of there until the bill is paid. 

[idahohuntr]

The arguments made by the ranchers daughter would be akin to me arguing that because my family has hunted central Idaho since the early 1900's, when there was no fee for elk tags, no season, and no limit that I should be entitled to hunt in central Idaho whenever I want with no limit in any unit I want. The fact that the government is now regulating elk harvest does not apply to me.  IDFG is there to manage the game for sportsmen right? I'm a sportsman so they should do their job and stay out of my way when I want to shoot 3 or 4 bulls in September with a rifle...like this Bundy guy I may even offer Idaho County $2 for an elk tag if the State won't accept my payment...or whatever they cost when they first started selling them...since I'm such a nice guy.  Same logic.       

I see quite a difference in the scenario you mention. Idaho is asking for a tag fee but they are not stopping all hunting. 

BLM still allows grazing on millions of acres of public land too. 

If your hunting in Idaho for the last hundred years or so was your livelihood, and the government decided to change things on you for arbitrary reasons, I would certainly stand beside you.  But that wasn't what this is about.  You can only twist it so many ways before even YOU realize you're losing this fight....

BLM land management decisions are not arbitrary...much like elk seasons, BLM lands are regulated to protect a resource for public use...including grazing when and where appropriate.  Furthermore, I don't subscribe to your asanine belief that commercial activity should be given preferential access to the public's resources...its ok for a corporation to access the blm land to make a profit but I am less deserving because I'm just a low income hunter...       

[AspenBud]

It seems the real issue is removing all ranchers, the fee issue is only being used as a reason to remove this rancher. The real intention seems very obvious since the other 52 ranchers who tried to follow the law have already been removed.   

Seems there should be diplomatic ways to resolve this rather than creating marshall law and sending in Blackhawk helicopters and snipers. Some managers need to be replaced.

BLM buys up all the ranches around him and when he refuses to sell they bring in the ESA Tortis? This really shows the fraud and corruption of the ESA does't it?

Would it have been better if they had never mentioned the tortoise and simply said there is a grazing fee to pay...because they said so? I fail to see the difference. The Fed owns the land and they can, heh, do whatever they want with it including charging grazing fees.

The Fed does not own the land, we do and allow them to administer it.

Correct, and he is stealing from us per the rules set down by the government that we elected to administer things.

[bearpaw]

How much are the grazing fees per animal unit? In general, public land grazing is a LOSER financially for the public.  The Colville NF leases are a joke...  The ranchers pay literally pennies per acre and the cows wipe out a ton of habitat, trees, and riparian buffers. 
We are dealing with that very thing right now in the Leclerc Cr. Drainage in PO county.  The rancher leases the ENTIRE place for ~$600 per year and the Power Company is on the hook to restore the streams.  Now, the ratepayers are subsidizing the rancher.  I do not agree with that.

I don't know the story on this Bundy guy.  It appears that the Feds are being pretty heavy handed, but the guy is clearly not paying his cost (or the REAL COST...see above) for his lease... get the damn cows out of there until the bill is paid.

If your theory was correct that cattle destroy the land then all private land that is grazed year after year would be terrible wildlife habitat. However, I would suggest that the opposite is true, I would suggest that grazing helps the habitat and would use the fact that there are greater wildlife numbers on private land as proof in support of my theory.

Ranching supports the entire local economy just as logging, mining, oil/gas, dams, farming, and other uses of land and natural resources. As we remove all uses of our land and natural resources Americans are seeing the results in our economy. You can't sustain an economy on government jobs and welfare programs alone.

[bobcat]

It's pretty simple. He hasn't paid what he owes, he deserves what he's getting.

What, did he think people would feel sorry for him and he'd get to graze his cows forever on public land for free?     Idiot!       

[bearpaw]

If you guys think the grazing fees are too low then lobby for higher grazing fees, I might even agree with and support that if in fact the guy WACoyote mentioned is only paying $600.

But the reality is that the greeners are using it as an excuse to end grazing. That is the issue... 

[WAcoyotehunter]

How much are the grazing fees per animal unit? In general, public land grazing is a LOSER financially for the public.  The Colville NF leases are a joke...  The ranchers pay literally pennies per acre and the cows wipe out a ton of habitat, trees, and riparian buffers. 
We are dealing with that very thing right now in the Leclerc Cr. Drainage in PO county.  The rancher leases the ENTIRE place for ~$600 per year and the Power Company is on the hook to restore the streams.  Now, the ratepayers are subsidizing the rancher.  I do not agree with that.

I don't know the story on this Bundy guy.  It appears that the Feds are being pretty heavy handed, but the guy is clearly not paying his cost (or the REAL COST...see above) for his lease... get the damn cows out of there until the bill is paid.

If your theory was correct that cattle destroy the land then all private land that is grazed year after year would be terrible wildlife habitat. However, I would suggest that the opposite is true, I would suggest that grazing helps the habitat and would use the fact that there are greater wildlife numbers on private land as proof in support of my theory.

Ranching supports the entire local economy just as logging, mining, oil/gas, dams, farming, and other uses of land and natural resources. As we remove all uses of our land and natural resources Americans are seeing the results in our economy. You can't sustain an economy on government jobs and welfare programs alone.

I disagree and have a pile of data to support my claim that cattle are destructive to native ecosystems.  I surveyed most of those streams and had to move cattle out of the way while I worked.  They sit in a riparian area and eat the shoreline vegetation, then trample the banks, then crap in the water... how can that possibly be good for fish and wildlife?

Cattle move weeds, eat the grasses and short trees/shrubs, and displace wildlife.  Come over to Leclerc Cr when the cattle are in the meadows and tell me that they are good for the habitat... crazy.

I support ranching, farming, logging, mining, ect... as long as the people making the profit pay the true cost.  As a tax payer, rate payer, ect... I should not have to subsidize the destruction of wildlife habitat.

If they want to graze- great!  Fix and maintain fences, treat weeds, move cattle, and pay the cost involved. 

[bearpaw]

It's pretty simple. He hasn't paid what he owes, he deserves what he's getting. What, did he think people would feel sorry for him and he'd get to graze his cows forver on public land for free?     Idiot!       

I agree he needs to pay something... This doesn't make a lot of sense to me spending millions because of 1 million in overdue fees. Make a settlement with the guy and save the taxpayers some money. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

It's pretty simple. He hasn't paid what he owes, he deserves what he's getting.

What, did he think people would feel sorry for him and he'd get to graze his cows forever on public land for free?     Idiot!       

The tortoise is a scape goat in this argument.... he quit paying his fees FIVE years before any of the area was even designated critical habitat.  Mr. Bundy was a deadbeat before the tortoise or ESA was on the scene.

[bearpaw]

How much are the grazing fees per animal unit? In general, public land grazing is a LOSER financially for the public.  The Colville NF leases are a joke...  The ranchers pay literally pennies per acre and the cows wipe out a ton of habitat, trees, and riparian buffers. 
We are dealing with that very thing right now in the Leclerc Cr. Drainage in PO county.  The rancher leases the ENTIRE place for ~$600 per year and the Power Company is on the hook to restore the streams.  Now, the ratepayers are subsidizing the rancher.  I do not agree with that.

I don't know the story on this Bundy guy.  It appears that the Feds are being pretty heavy handed, but the guy is clearly not paying his cost (or the REAL COST...see above) for his lease... get the damn cows out of there until the bill is paid.

If your theory was correct that cattle destroy the land then all private land that is grazed year after year would be terrible wildlife habitat. However, I would suggest that the opposite is true, I would suggest that grazing helps the habitat and would use the fact that there are greater wildlife numbers on private land as proof in support of my theory.

Ranching supports the entire local economy just as logging, mining, oil/gas, dams, farming, and other uses of land and natural resources. As we remove all uses of our land and natural resources Americans are seeing the results in our economy. You can't sustain an economy on government jobs and welfare programs alone.

I disagree and have a pile of data to support my claim that cattle are destructive to native ecosystems.  I surveyed most of those streams and had to move cattle out of the way while I worked.  They sit in a riparian area and eat the shoreline vegetation, then trample the banks, then crap in the water... how can that possibly be good for fish and wildlife?

Cattle move weeds, eat the grasses and short trees/shrubs, and displace wildlife.  Come over to Leclerc Cr when the cattle are in the meadows and tell me that they are good for the habitat... crazy.

I support ranching, farming, logging, mining, ect... as long as the people making the profit pay the true cost.  As a tax payer, rate payer, ect... I should not have to subsidize the destruction of wildlife habitat.

If they want to graze- great!  Fix and maintain fences, treat weeds, move cattle, and pay the cost involved.

I don't completely disagree, the grazer should take some ownership. However, I would suggest it is not only the cows spreading weeds, all wildlife spreads weeds equally as much as cattle. Has anyone asked the rancher to fence the creek to keep his lease or was it easier to just try and force the rancher out since you obviously dislike grazing?

I would rather see us work toward solutions to problems rather than simply ending another local resident's livelihood. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

It's pretty simple. He hasn't paid what he owes, he deserves what he's getting. What, did he think people would feel sorry for him and he'd get to graze his cows forver on public land for free?     Idiot!       

I agree he needs to pay something... This doesn't make a lot of sense to me spending millions because of 1 million in overdue fees. Make a settlement with the guy and save the taxpayers some money. 

I agree.  The feds are a tangled bureaucracy and suck to deal with.  They can make a mess of pretty simple things like leases. 

Their disorganization for the last 2 decades, coupled with his victim mentality caused this mess.  He needs to expect change and deal with it, the Gov needs to make change reasonable and thoughtful.