The Cry of the Wolf in the West
Tom Beno
Watersheds Messenger Spring 2003 Vol. X, No. 1 PDF ISSUE
The Cry of the Wolf in the West
By George Wuerthner
The current wolf recovery program in the West demonstrates that we can
restore these spectacular and essential wild creatures to the American
landscape. In places such as Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho,
wolves are thriving.
Travel outside these few special areas, however, and you will discover
another trend. Nearly all of the wolf packs whose territories significantly
overlap areas with domestic livestock wind up dead or removed. The recent
killings by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Whitehawk pack in
Idaho, the Dome Mountain, Gravelly Range and Nine Mile wolves in Montana,
and wolves in northern Utah - all in the name of livestock protection -
illustrate the problem in living, lurid color. To compound it, the FWS in
March downlisted wolves to "threatened" from "endangered" in most of the
lower 48 states.
While wolves are alive and well in essentially livestock-free zones such as
Yellowstone, the primary goal of wolf reintroduction in the West - to
restore the ecological and evolutionary influences of a large predator
across the landscape - is not occurring. Token wolf populations in
Yellowstone or central Idaho, wonderful as these isolated examples are, do
not contribute substantially to the long-term biodiversity goal of restoring
wolves as the top predator on public lands in the West.
Though domestic sheep and cattle losses to wolves are greatly exaggerated by
the livestock industry - domestic dogs, for example, killed 10 times as many
domestic animals in Montana last year as wolves - the restoration of wolves
is almost universally opposed by livestock interests. And it is the presence
of livestock that chiefly determines the destiny of wolf restoration in the
West.
Western ranchers have successfully externalized one of their costs of
production, namely, protecting their animals from predators simply by
extirpating the predators on their own or with the help of state and federal
agencies. Rather than spend money on animal husbandry practices that could
reduce or eliminate most predator-livestock conflicts, livestock producers
have simply removed the wolf from the landscape.
Animal husbandry assumes many practical, reasonable forms: guard animals,
shepherds, lambing and calving sheds, penning of animals at night to reduce
opportunities for predators, and rapid disposal of animal carcasses that
might attract predators to the area.
The aridity that characterizes the West forces livestock to roam widely to
find sufficient forage. Cattle and domestic sheep spread out over vast
acreage, often with little supervision by ranchers. In the "Columbus" method
of animal husbandry, ranchers turn out their cows on the range in the spring
and return in the fall to "discover" how many are left alive. Such lax
stewardship gives wolves and other predators many opportunities to snare a
cow or sheep.
Even so-called "predator-friendly" livestock operations can have a negative
effect on overall wolf recovery. For one, there is no free lunch. Currently,
the majority of forage is allotted to livestock, leaving less to support
native herbivores. In many areas, this significantly reduces the overall
number of prey animals available to wolves.
Second, the mere presence of domestic livestock displaces many ungulate
species, from mule deer to elk to antelope. Displacement can force native
herbivores into less desirable habitat, making them more vulnerable to
weather, poor forage and other impacts that reduce their populations.
Third, dead animals left on the land are attractants for wolves. Wolves
often get their first taste of beef or lamb by consuming a dead cow or sheep
before they prey on live animals. By creating conditions that can turn a
wolf into a livestock predator, even a predator-friendly producer may
contribute to the death of wolves if the animals wind up killing livestock
elsewhere.
These issues loom large in wolf recovery efforts in the West because
livestock are found nearly everywhere on the landscape, save for a few
livestock-free parks and preserves. Nearly 90 percent of all Bureau of Land
Management lands are leased for livestock production. The same goes for 69
percent of all U.S. Forest Service lands.
In sum, more than 300 million acres of the West, including state and federal
lands, are leased for livestock production. That's an area larger than the
entire eastern seaboard, from Maine to Florida. There are few large tracts
of public land outside of Yellowstone and the central Idaho wilderness that
are free of livestock. Until this condition changes, livestock production
will remain a critical barrier in the restoration of wolves in the West.
Removing livestock from public lands would significantly reduce conflicts
with wolves (some conflicts on private lands would remain). Although the
courts have recognized time and again that livestock grazing permits are a
privilege and not a right, federal agencies seldom reduce livestock numbers,
much less close an allotment, even when there is clear evidence of
ecological abuse or conflicts with other public values such as wolf
restoration.
A voluntary grazing permit retirement program such as the one proposed by
the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign would be
especially useful in resolving livestock/趴olf conflicts in the West. These
conflicts often recur in the same places because they happen to be the best
habitat for wolves.
If ranchers in these areas elected to terminate their grazing allotments,
the major source of conflict would be removed, creating the potential for
wolf recovery throughout the entire West. Such a program may be essential if
we are ever to recover the Mexican wolf in the Southwest or re-establish
wolves in areas of Oregon or Colorado where wolf habitat is abundant but
livestock roam free.
-----
George Wuerthner, co-editor with Mollie Matteson of "Welfare Ranching: The
Subsidized Destruction of the American West," is an advisory board member of
WWP. Formerly from Bozeman, MT, he currently lives in Richmond, Vt.
Greylock
back.
Notice he wants the RANCHERS to bear the cost of bringing back the wolves,
nowhere does he suggest that HE should offer to pay or to even help pay the
cost.
And the bland way he makes some of his "suggestions" for better animal
husbandry practices clearly indicates he hasn't even the faintest notion of
the realities of trying to run a ranching operation. Or, perhaps, that he
DOES know and simply doesn't choose to mention that his "suggestions" are
utterly unrealistic both financially and because of the relatively large
acreages involved.
"Tom Beno" <tom....@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:FCTpa.331824$OV.364441@rwcrnsc54...
> especially useful in resolving livestock/Âwolf conflicts in the West.
Tom Beno
"Greylock" <vin...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:tvbqa.8329$ac.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Great way to put the cost of doing what YOU want to do onto someone else's
> back.
>
> Notice he wants the RANCHERS to bear the cost of bringing back the wolves,
> nowhere does he suggest that HE should offer to pay or to even help pay the
> cost.
The overall cost for wolf reintroductions into the northern Rockies has cost
every American citizen approximately 5 cents each. I don't see anywhere in the
article that RANCHERS have to pay more nickels than anyone else.
====================
> And the bland way he makes some of his "suggestions" for better animal
> husbandry practices clearly indicates he hasn't even the faintest notion of
> the realities of trying to run a ranching operation. Or, perhaps, that he
> DOES know and simply doesn't choose to mention that his "suggestions" are
> utterly unrealistic both financially and because of the relatively large
> acreages involved.
>------------
"Utterly unrealistic" - in your vernacular - means "Don't rock the ranching
boat. We want our taxpayer-paid subsidies to continue, thank you, and we want
our cows to degrade streams and damage riparian areas because that's how it's
always been. That's our 'heritage.' We want to continue diverting public water
to irrigate our private crops (to feed our private cows), and we want our
private cows to continue to eat public forage on public lands that rightfully
belongs to public wildlife. That's how my granddaddy did it, and I ain't
intendin' to change fer no "husbandry" stuff."
Thank you for that sound, productive RANCHING testimony.
Greylock
cost
every American citizen approximately 5 cents each. I don't see anywhere in
the
article that RANCHERS have to pay more nickels than anyone else."
Read carefully. Even a biased reader, which you certainly are, should see
that he blows right past the cost of animals lost to predation, personnel to
implement the "enhanced" operations he likes (and which are ALL LABOR
INTENSIVE) and the cost of all of the aditional physical plant he promotes
(additional pens, barns,and other shelters).
For the rest of your prejudicial and unfounded bullshit, I am not on earth
to educate the ignorant, especially the ignorant who are determined to
REMAIN forever ignorant.
In the unlikely event you ever choose to try a few facts, look into the
treatment the government is meting out ot ranchers in the west.
By the way, you ARE a vegetarian aren't you? Because if you are not, you can
add hypocrasy to willful ignorance among the sins in your little basket.
"Tom Beno" <tom....@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:K7cqa.618197$L1.175312@sccrnsc02...
Tom Beno
> Read carefully.
>------------
You (or I, or anyone) can read as carefully as you wish - but if it ain't there
to be read, then it ain't there to be read.
====================
> Even a biased reader, which you certainly are, should see
> that he blows right past the cost of animals lost to predation, personnel to
> implement the "enhanced" operations he likes (and which are ALL LABOR
> INTENSIVE) and the cost of all of the aditional physical plant he promotes
> (additional pens, barns,and other shelters).
>-------------
I'm certainly biased - in favor of public lands, public water, public wildlife,
public backcountry, and other public resources. And I'm learning to become
biased AGAINST those (like you) who seem to think degradation of public
property is OK - as long as it benefits YOUR wallet. If your personal endeavor
for your personal profit is too LABOR INTENSIVE - then cry to someone else
about it, or find something else to do.
Since the problem of public land degradation by private interest ranching is
over a hundred years old, it would take many books (perhaps libraries) to go
into significant and far-reaching detail. If you want to call that "blowing
right past" it - fine. I call it reading things that you're likely causing (and
certainly contributing to), not liking to see it in print, and being challenged
on it. That's a risk you take when you pipe up on a newsgroup and hope that
folks will just meekly accept your bullshit - it doesn't work that way.
====================
> For the rest of your prejudicial and unfounded bullshit, I am not on earth
> to educate the ignorant, especially the ignorant who are determined to
> REMAIN forever ignorant.
>--------------
When you're called on your own bullshit and can't back it up with anything
except "That's the way my grandpappy did it and that's the way I'm a-gonna do
it," then the "ignorance" seems to come directly from YOUR email address. Like
I said - if ranching is too costly to do properly, and NOT at the expense of
other taxpayers and public resources - then find something else to do.
====================
> In the unlikely event you ever choose to try a few facts, look into the
> treatment the government is meting out ot ranchers in the west.
>--------------
I covered some of them already. Ranchers taking public water for their private
livestock. Ranchers paying one-seventh of the going market rate to put their
PRIVATE livestock on PUBLIC lands (taxpayers picking up the rest of the tab, of
course). Ranchers calling in ADC/Wildlife Services (for free, of course), and
having them kill our PUBLIC wildlife to protect your PRIVATE livestock.
(Taxpayers pay for that, too, of course). Ranchers stringing thousands of miles
of barbed wire, cutting off travel and migration routes for PUBLIC wildlife for
the pleasure and use of their PRIVATE livestock. Ranchers allowing their
PRIVATE cows to continue fouling our PUBLIC waters, in direct violation of the
Clean Water Act. Ranchers allowing their PRIVATE cows to degrade our PUBLIC
waterways and riparian areas.
I could continue, but even the ignorant should get the picture by now.
====================
> By the way, you ARE a vegetarian aren't you?
>---------------
If it matters in the least, no, I'm not.
====================
> Because if you are not, you can
> add hypocrasy to willful ignorance among the sins in your little basket.
>----------------
So, because I eat meat, I'm a hypocrite? Do you have to study to make such
stupid comments?
The point is - there are better places to raise cattle than in the arid West,
at the expense of native wildlife and taxpayers - who pay your way, while
people like YOU degrade OUR PUBLIC lands.
When you have something intelligent to say and facts to back it up (instead of
just whining and adolescent name-calling) - please let me know.
lcs Mixmaster Remailer
had to decide, pick up on one and let the other one go. On one
side, words aimed at unifying, building consensus, taking one
small step toward gaining an energized commited majority,
motivating for positive action and making progress to accomplish
the objective and win. On the other side, words aimed at
attacking, belittling, insulting, stereotyping, dividing,
rigidifying, losing. How to choose? Beno takes the usual road to
creating yet another loss, creating yet another opponent.
In article <K7cqa.618197$L1.175312@sccrnsc02>
lcs Mixmaster Remailer
"Tom Beno" <tom....@attbi.com> wrote:
> I covered some of them already. Ranchers taking public water for their private
> livestock.
How can I tell if the water is private water or public water? Is
it color coded? How can I get the "public" to pay me for the
private water that runs off my land into a "public" stream?
Isn't it fair that the "public" pay me for my private water, or
is it only fair that private parties pay the government for
"public" water?
> Ranchers paying one-seventh of the going market rate to put their
> PRIVATE livestock on PUBLIC lands (taxpayers picking up the rest of the tab, of
> course).
If they are getting the grazing for that price, then that is the
market price. The ranchers are told what it will cost, and they
pay it. Your beef (pun intended) is with the government, not the
ranchers. You want the government to increase the price to the
ranchers. Take it up with your congress coward.
> Ranchers calling in ADC/Wildlife Services (for free, of course), and
> having them kill our PUBLIC wildlife to protect your PRIVATE livestock.
So you want users to pay for ADC/Wildlife Services, but you
don't want users to pay to use backcountry?
Again, your beef is with the government.
> (Taxpayers pay for that, too, of course).
Do you want taxpayers to pay for making the backcountry
available to you? But you don't want taxpayers to pay for making
grazing land available for grazing? My, aren't you special!!
> Ranchers stringing thousands of miles
> of barbed wire, cutting off travel and migration routes for PUBLIC wildlife for
> the pleasure and use of their PRIVATE livestock.
So you want private property owners not to be allowed to put up
a fence on their own private land, and you don't want to pay
them for taking a property right from them?
> Ranchers allowing their
> PRIVATE cows to continue fouling our PUBLIC waters, in direct violation of the
> Clean Water Act.
Those darn whiteface are real hard to toilet train. And darn it
if water doesn't just keep flowing downhill, no matter what
congress says.
> Ranchers allowing their PRIVATE cows to degrade our PUBLIC
> waterways and riparian areas.
Those cows should be leashed! Kept indoors. People should follow
them with pooper scoopers! Beno, there's a job you can handle!
>
> I could continue, but even the ignorant should get the picture by now.
For sure.
> So, because I eat meat, I'm a hypocrite? Do you have to study to make such
> stupid comments?
Do you eat only toilet trained meat? How do you verify that the
low price you pay for beef and pork isn't being subsidized by
the taxpayers? How do you verify that the cow pooped in a place
you approve? How do you verify that it drank only private water.
If you don't do that, then you are paying ranchers to provide
beef that fouls your environment and uses public water, right?
You are as guilty as a drug buyer is for drug violence in
Colombia. You need to clean up your own act and do better before
you critize others.
>
> The point is - there are better places to raise cattle than in the arid West,
> at the expense of native wildlife and taxpayers - who pay your way, while
> people like YOU degrade OUR PUBLIC lands.
Now you say the ranchers are pooping in the creek, along with
those dirty cows?
>
> When you have something intelligent to say and facts to back it up (instead of
> just whining and adolescent name-calling) - please let me know.
Oh, you wouldn't want any adolescent name-calling to mess up
your concensus building....
Greylock
makes it impossible to discuss anything.
The first is that I have absolutely NO financial stake in ranching, but I do
have enough sense to look at BOTH sides of an argument instead of only one.
You have your mind locked into an adversarial mode, like most of the people
who fall into the category of "environmental wacko". Other people have needs
and wishes besides just YOU, believe it or not. But you prefer the "take no
prisoners style" of confrontation which confuses commitment with an absolute
refusal to admit that ANY view but yours is valid or should be considered.
You have NO PROBLEM with attacking a way of life and a culture literally
older that the country you live in to meet your own narrow interests and you
want to use the government as a club to beat anyone who doesn't agree with
you into submission.
Frankly, I am not interested in listening your your monomanical raving.
Goodbye, jerk.
<plonk>
"Tom Beno" <tom....@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:tueqa.620092$F1.82932@sccrnsc04...
Tom Beno
> I actually do have something intelligent to say to you. Though your mania
> makes it impossible to discuss anything.
>
> The first is that I have absolutely NO financial stake in ranching, but I do
> have enough sense to look at BOTH sides of an argument instead of only one.
No you don't. YOUR mode is to have taxpayers pay your way, and have somebody
else (besides you) pay for YOUR costs of doing business. Like I said - sucking
off the federal tit - and anyone else who you can get to subsidize you
(ranching or other).
====================
> You have your mind locked into an adversarial mode, like most of the people
> who fall into the category of "environmental wacko". Other people have needs
> and wishes besides just YOU, believe it or not. But you prefer the "take no
> prisoners style" of confrontation which confuses commitment with an absolute
> refusal to admit that ANY view but yours is valid or should be considered.
>
> You have NO PROBLEM with attacking a way of life and a culture literally
> older that the country you live in to meet your own narrow interests and you
> want to use the government as a club to beat anyone who doesn't agree with
> you into submission.
>-----------
I have NOT PROBLEM attacking people who pop off about things they either don't
know about, or who try to ram through THEIR preferences - as long as someone
else pays for it.
====================
> Frankly, I am not interested in listening your your monomanical raving.
>
> Goodbye, jerk.
>
> <plonk>
>------------
Aw - don't sulk and run away. Frankly, YOU opened yer mouth with insults and
asinine comments (void of facts) - remember? Just thought I'd jam a few of 'em
back in your direction to see how you handle 'em - and here you go, cryin'
away.
If you can't handle the heat, then stay out of the kitchen.
DW
ps stop cross posting!!!
Tom Beno
>
> lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote:
>
"DW" <wes...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3EAAC4C2...@pacbell.net...
> Very Sad
>
>--------------
From: "Tom Beno" <tom....@attbi.com>
Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.national-parks,rec.backcountry
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Whine, bitch and carp.
> ..... - the key is that Ics Mixmaster Remailer stuff. I filter 'em all
> immediately into the shitcan, unread. I've yet to find anyone who uses
> "anonymous" remailers to be worth a drop of testicular sweat.
Peter H
>How can I tell if the water is private water or public water? Is
>it color coded? How can I get the "public" to pay me for the
>private water that runs off my land into a "public" stream?
>Isn't it fair that the "public" pay me for my private water, or
>is it only fair that private parties pay the government for
>"public" water?
>
>
>
Either send a bill to God or get a Cease & Desist order to have him stop
raining on "your" land.
Pete H
--
Any theory can be made to fit
any facts by means of appropriate
additional assumptions.
anon.
lcs Mixmaster Remailer
Peter H <pmhi...@mfx.net> wrote:
>
> lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote:
>
> >How can I tell if the water is private water or public water? Is
> >it color coded? How can I get the "public" to pay me for the
> >private water that runs off my land into a "public" stream?
> >Isn't it fair that the "public" pay me for my private water, or
> >is it only fair that private parties pay the government for
> >"public" water?
> >
> >
> >
> Either send a bill to God or get a Cease & Desist order to have him stop
> raining on "your" land.
>
"private" water that runs on to "public" lands. Only fair, if
I'm supposed to pay for water from "public" lands.
George Cleveland
wrote:
Private water? No such animal. You only use it and pass it on.
Pisser,eh?
g.c.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Peter H
>NO, you missed the point. I want the government to pay me for my
>"private" water that runs on to "public" lands. Only fair, if
>I'm supposed to pay for water from "public" lands.
>
>
>
In Maine, at least, you only "own" the water if you also own the land surounding it.
Terry Rudd
You don't know much about water law or private property rights if you
spout this kind of nonsense. And your sense of "fairness" isn't likely
to see light of day in a water court.
On the bigger point, ranching and farming, in the west have special
treatment by our government, to the point that they have become
entitlement, regardless of how poor the economics are. Beno is
absolutely right that it is far cheaper and more efficient to raise a
cow in Iowa than anywhere out here in the west. But by God it is a
divine right to do it anyway, isn't it?
No one in our government cares much when a million high tech workers are
laid off in 18 months but if a policy pisses off a couple of dozen
farmers, it makes front page news and there are at least 6 congressional
representatives taking up a sword on their behalf, while half their
state government starts bitching about the "taking that has occurred".
When ranchers came out here 120 years ago, they killed everything in
their way- the indigenous people, the bison, the grizzly and of course,
the wolf. I am aware that at the time our government encouraged and
supported it. It was Manifest Destiny. It was a terrible thing to do
but most didn't really know better then. Today, we know a lot better.
And yes, a great many of us don't think this entitlement belongs here
anymore and support dismantling the entitlement. I am not against
public land ranching but it should not have the exclusivity it currently
enjoys.
There are western ranchers that will adjust and thrive in a post "divine
right to do as you damn well please" public land system and a great many
will fail. And if enough fail, small towns will fail too. It is not
lost on me why there is currently subsidies for ranching.
But even today, with billions in subsidies, farms and ranches are
failing because of chronic over production and because they cannot
compete with the agri-business monopolies their ranching oriented
politicians also support and harbor. The entire agri-business in the
US is rotten to the core and should be overhauled, with most of the
giant agribusiness broken up so there is real competition again. That
is the greatest threat to family farming/ranching, not wolves!
Terry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Tom Beno
>
> We want our cows to degrade streams and damage riparian areas because that's
> how it's always been. That's our 'heritage.' We want to continue diverting
> public water to irrigate our private crops (to feed our private cows), and we
> want our private cows to continue to eat public forage on public lands that
==============
FARMING BIGGEST THREAT TO BIODIVERSITY
from George Wuerthner
(Excerpts)
The biggest impact to US biodiversity comes from farming. Just two
crops--feeder corn and soybeans--will be planted on 154 million acres of land
this coming year. Another nearly 10 million acres will be planted to sorghum.
The majority of these crops are fed to domestic livestock--primarily cattle.
There are approximately 130 million acres of the US in hay production. Again
with most of this going to livestock.
Add all these crops up and you have nearly 300 million acres of America's
cropland being used for animal forage production. To put this into
perspective, Colorado is about 60 million acres in size. So imagine Colorado
without mountains, and ski resorts and nothing but hay, corn or soybean
fields from border to border--then multiple that by five states the size of
Colorado and you get some idea of how much land is annually destroyed to
produce livestock feed.
These acres are nearly useless for native wildlife and obviously completely
destroy native plant communities. They are plowed up often soaked with
pesticides and fertilizers. They fragment surrounding lands. And they
provide almost no benefits for native biodiversity.
In addition, these massive crop plantings actually compete with the small
farm producing locally grown vegetables because subsidies make production of
forage crops more attractive and less risky than producing sweet corn,
peppers, tomatoes, or whatever might be grown on some of these lands in the
absence of livestock production.
Nearly all of this crop production is subsidized and much of it would not
exist without continued government subsidy.
Agriculture is a major environmental problem. It is responsible for more water
pollution, ground water pollution, habitat loss and fragmentation than any
other land use. Plus the recent switch to genetically modified seeds and
organizations, it probably poses one of the greatest threats to natural
ecosystems of any land use in the country yet it gets virtually no attention
from conservation groups.
By contrast, everyone focuses on sprawl--which is a problem--but it pales
in contract to agriculture. All urbanized development in the US occupies
less than 60 million acres in the US.
Sprawl is an issue, however, if environmental groups want to something about
stemming the loss of biodiversity in this country they also should start
focusing their attention on agricultural land uses which are the most
destructive land use by acreage in the US.
moun...@iname.com
>soybean fields from border to border--then multiple that by five states
>the size of Colorado and you get some idea of how much land is annually
>destroyed to produce livestock feed.
I am confused by the use of the word "destroyed" Is not the proper use of
the land terribly subjective? Those of us who like to eat don't
necessarily think of it as destroying the land. Truth be told, the land is
one of those renewable resources that everyone rants about not having
enough of.
I also think that the numbers may be impressive, but is not most of the
land now being used, pretty much flatland, with not a lot of backcountry
or outdoor activity potential? I have never had a desire to camp or hike
in Kansas or Nebraska. There are places to visit, but the midwest area is
not an outdoor recreation mecca. Nothing personal to those who live or
play there :-) Been there, found them a nice place to visit, but what I
mean is, what would that land be used for if not for the growing of cattle
feed and even some direct human food. There are few places on the whole
earth better suited for the mass growing of necessary crops to sustain a
large population. Would you advocate that we cease using that land so
people with ATVs and giant motorhomes can go play there?
>These acres are nearly useless for native wildlife and obviously
>completely destroy native plant communities. They are plowed up often
>soaked with pesticides and fertilizers. They fragment surrounding lands.
>And they provide almost no benefits for native biodiversity.
Again, are we not talking about mostly the plain states of Oklahoma,
Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, etc?
>Nearly all of this crop production is subsidized and much of it would not
>exist without continued government subsidy.
We will never know since the government will never cease the subsidies. I
don't agree with govt subsidizing farmers, but its necessary unless all
the other crap is gotten rid of to offset it all. Whole nuther topic.
>Agriculture is a major environmental problem. It is responsible for more
>water pollution, ground water pollution, habitat loss and fragmentation
>than any other land use. Plus the recent switch to genetically modified
>seeds and organizations, it probably poses one of the greatest threats to
>natural ecosystems of any land use in the country yet it gets virtually
>no attention from conservation groups.
I want to hear and discuss, but are you saying we should cease to grow
food? I can't imagine you are, but this paragraph pretty much says you
don't think we should grow crops because its bad for the land?? Perhaps we
should import all of our food and cattle feed??
>start focusing their attention on agricultural land uses which are the
>most destructive land use by acreage in the US.
Okay, if we stop growing the corn, wheat, etc, how do we replace them. A
lot of people eat this stuff you know :)
Frankly, I think you are up in the night to complain about agricultural
land abuse. Unless you know a better way to grow food, what is your point?
I'm listening
Tom Beno
<moun...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:3eb2aaf7$1$woehfu$mr2...@news.aros.net...
Contrary to your inferences (at least four, by my count) - *I* didn't write the
article - I just posted it. I don't have the background, statistics, the
reference material or the experience that the writer has. (Neither, obviously,
do you).
But I can offer some thoughts......
The writer's term about the land being "destroyed," it seems to me, logically
comes from comparison between lands in pristine, native, natural form versus
tilled, fertilized, and essentially made useless EXCEPT for crops for
LIVESTOCK. I read the article and I'm not confused by the use of the word. If
you are, then you are.
Much of the rest of your post simply indicates that you don't understand the
post (or the issue). For example:
> are you saying we should cease to grow
> food? I can't imagine you are, but this paragraph pretty much says you
> don't think we should grow crops because its bad for the land?? Perhaps we
> should import all of our food and cattle feed??
and.....
> Okay, if we stop growing the corn, wheat, etc, how do we replace them. A
> lot of people eat this stuff you know :)
>----------------
I don't see those as common-sense conclusions and questions, based on the
information in the article. Quite simply (and quite obviously), the article is
suggesting that most of the 300 million acres of land currenty being used to
produce food for LIVESTOCK can be put to better, much less expensive (for
taxpayers, who are paying for it) and less "destructive" use than growing crops
to feed cows.
"Import all of our food and cattle feed??" That's your conclusion?
On the contrary, if you subtract livestock (especially in the arid West) from
the equation, crops could be grown for much cheaper, lowering grocery costs,
and more could be EXPORTED - not imported.