From the Western Livestock Journal
blb...@jc.net
In article <334C91...@magicnet.net>,
Vau...@magicnet.net wrote:
>
> WOLFBAT359 wrote:
> >
> > The Following Letter-to-the-Editor was in the April 7, 1997 issue of the
> > Western Livestock Journal. Anybody have any comments as to the
> > devastation they said they observed!!
>
> Lessee here...
>
> On the rancher's side, grass is growing. On Yellowstone's side, it is
> not. Why is this? As Brent has pointed out earlier, grazing is good for
> public lands. But this article ticks me off. First, it sounds like this
> guy is trying to sell the idea that by grazing domestic stock on
> Yellowstone, we may actually preserve it. Well, the truth is, we could
> do the same thing with a few hundred bison... Oh wait, I forgot. We
> slaughtered two-thirds of them for cattle interests.
This type of article pops up in the range journals every so often. It's
another example of what I've been saying about trying to apply ranch
management objectives to natural areas.
>
> Secondly, the author is feeling pity for the bison who are starving.
> Gee, the word "hypocrisy" keeps resounding in my head; I wonder why? I
> guess ranching interests do have hearts after all; letting those poor
> bison starve to death is too cruel... Let's shoot 'em all instead!
Easy there Big Drew. Ranchers really do care about the animals. I'm
sure this person was genuine in their sympathy for the starving bison.
The problem is that's the way nature works. There will always be people
who think we have a moral obligation to ease pain and suffering of
animals and others who will prefer to see nature take its course. I
think its hard to argue that death by bullet isn't more humane than death
by starvation.
>
> So here is my paraphrased solution from what I drew from this article
> and the current *management* plan:
>
> Lunar landscape park bad.
> Grazing cattle good.
>
> Starving bison bad.
> Shooting bison good.
>
> If shooting bison good, and lunar landscape bad, and cattle grazing
> good, then putting cow in Yellowstone good.
I don't think that's what the author is trying to say at all. I think
the author is simply saying that no decent ranch manager would allow
their range to be managed that way, or their cattle to suffer like the
bison. He's suggesting that Yellowstone needs to be managed more like
modern ranches to fix these "problems". He would be right if Yellowstone
were being managed as a commercial meat producing enterprise. It's not,
it's a natural ecosystem.
BTW late winter is not the best time to be judging the range condition of
Yellowstone, particularly in a winter when severe weather has
concentrated grazing pressures. The article mentions a lack of basal
cover. As a comparison, excellent condition tallgrass prairie will have
a basal cover around 30 to 40 percent, but a canopy cover of 100 percent.
Given a severe winter when cattle, or bison, have to fight for food in
the few areas its available, almost all of the canopy cover might be
removed leaving 60 percent of the soil exposed. Remember that canopy
removal from dormant plants in frozen soil has no effect on plant
survival except the positive effects of excreta deposition. Given a
couple of weeks of growth, a seemingly denuded area can be right back to
a 100 percent cover of grass. Another interesting thought, there is an
inverse relationship between basal cover and standing biomass because
thick, tall canopys tend to shade out plants at the base. The low basal
cover reported in the article could be because the area in question was
lush and tall last summer.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent L. Brock
Kansas State University
Dept. of Agronomy, Range Science
blb...@ksu.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There you have it, folks. Scary, huh?
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
> "Snootchie bootchie nootchies!"
> --Jay, "Mallrats"
>
> "Big" Drew Vaughan
> vau...@magicnet.net
> http://www.FurNation.com/big_drew (Furry Art!)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Don Baccus
In article <8608195...@dejanews.com>, <blb...@jc.net> wrote:
>In article <334C91...@magicnet.net>,
> Vau...@magicnet.net wrote:
>> On the rancher's side, grass is growing. On Yellowstone's side, it is
>> not. Why is this? As Brent has pointed out earlier, grazing is good for
>> public lands.
Brent, I'm surprised you let him get away with this sweeping generalization.
Grazing is good for those ecosystems which have co-evolved with grazers,
such as our native grasslands east of the Rockies.
Since most of our public range lands don't lie within those grasslands,
but rather within the Sonoran, Mojave, Chihuahuan and Great Basin
deserts, extrapolating this reality to the blanket statement that
"grazing is good for public lands" is unjustified.
It is this blanket extrapolation that makes it tough for conservationists
to publicly declare that grazing is ever good on public lands. It gets
picked up, extrapolated to a sweeping generalization, and is used by
the cattle industry to justify grazing on all public lands, beneficial
or not.
>> Secondly, the author is feeling pity for the bison who are starving.
>> Gee, the word "hypocrisy" keeps resounding in my head; I wonder why? I
>> guess ranching interests do have hearts after all; letting those poor
>> bison starve to death is too cruel... Let's shoot 'em all instead!
A doctor in eastern Oregon shot a few cows that were on his land,
after a few years of trying to fence them out, hiring wranglers to
get the neighboring ranchers cows off, etc - our open range laws make
it the land owners responsibility to rid their land of stray cows,
not the owner of the cows. Without digressing to the hypocricy of
ranchers who preach the sanctity of private property rights when
faced with laws protecting water quality and wildlife, while ignoring
the rights of a land owner to keep one's land free of another's cattle,
the response of the cow's owners is interesting.
"How could he shoot those poor cows?" He is outraged. He makes it
sound as though these poor cows are family pets. Of course, the fact
that the point of raising these poor cows is to provide animals for
slaughter doesn't seem to enter the picture...
And he himself shot his brother-in-law to death over the rights to
drive cattle down a particular road. He was acquitted as acting
in self defence, though I find it interesting that bro-in-law was
shot EIGHT TIMES. The doctor used six bullets to kill six cows
(walked up to them).
The doctor faces several years in prison for cow-shooting, it turns
out. It's a serious offense. The locals have been writing letters
suggesting lynching is the appropriate response. Buncha rednecks,
that's for sure.
It's worth it, though. Gives a new spin on the private property
rights movement. Open Range laws are implemented on a county
basis, and The Oregonian has already published one letter to the
editor protesting Grant County's (where the offense occured) "taking"
of the Doctor's property via the Open Range ordinance. Written tongue
in cheek, of course, but it's a great example to toss in the face
of pious property-rights speakers from ranching country.
>Easy there Big Drew. Ranchers really do care about the animals. I'm
>sure this person was genuine in their sympathy for the starving bison.
Actually, they do. It is an interesting kind of caring, though.
>I don't think that's what the author is trying to say at all. I think
>the author is simply saying that no decent ranch manager would allow
>their range to be managed that way, or their cattle to suffer like the
>bison. He's suggesting that Yellowstone needs to be managed more like
>modern ranches to fix these "problems".
He's trying to imply that the rancher-driven solution to the out-migration
of bison this year - massive slaughter - was the right solution not just
because of disease potential, but for humane and scientific management
reasons. In other words, his letter is meant to bolster the cause of
those who would force the Park to choose between the current policy,
or managing the bison like cattle.
The letter is a political missive, intended to appeal to the emotions,
the ranching community's equivalent of Greenpeace's doe-eyed baby
fur seals.
Brent, the western ranching interests are consumate politicians, damned
good at it. They kick conservationist butt time-after-time, not because
they're hicks, but because they're sophisticated at driving the system.
I read this man's letter entirely in that context, after all he's
the head of a livestock organization, mentions having met with
newspeople. Just out to see for himself? Oh, right. The man
clearly had a personal agenda and the hired spinmeisters probably
wrote the piece before he left on his trip.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at (NEW) http://donb.photo.net
Vaughan
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> In article <8608195...@dejanews.com>, <blb...@jc.net> wrote:
> >In article <334C91...@magicnet.net>,
> > Vau...@magicnet.net wrote:
>
> >> On the rancher's side, grass is growing. On Yellowstone's side, it is
> >> not. Why is this? As Brent has pointed out earlier, grazing is good for
> >> public lands.
>
> Brent, I'm surprised you let him get away with this sweeping generalization.
Sorry, Don. I was referring to lands which have have had to deal with
grazers, i.e., grazing lands around Yellowstone.
_________________________________________________________________________
"...and when the stage is trashed, we go smoke a bowl. You got that? Now
get your fat ass up there! And dude, don't forget your helmet.
Snoogin'."
Brent L. Brock
Don Baccus <dho...@pacifier.com> wrote in article
<5io57v$e70$1...@news.pacifier.com>...
> In article <8608195...@dejanews.com>, <blb...@jc.net> wrote:
> >In article <334C91...@magicnet.net>,
> > Vau...@magicnet.net wrote:
>
> >> On the rancher's side, grass is growing. On Yellowstone's side, it is
> >> not. Why is this? As Brent has pointed out earlier, grazing is good
for
> >> public lands.
>
> Brent, I'm surprised you let him get away with this sweeping
generalization.
Actually, I figured you be along shortly to clear that up :-). You did a
good job of it too. I could also add that, just because an area has a
natural history of grazing, doesn't mean that any type of grazing will be
beneficial. Along the same line, just because and area lacks a natural
history of grazing, doesn't mean all grazing will create damage. Each area
needs to be evaluated in terms of its natural processes and tolerance
limits.
I've known ranchers that are quite sad on the days they send their cattle
off to market. I suppose it's like getting rid of a litter of puppies
you've grown attached to. You know it has to be done, but it's still hard.
>
> >I don't think that's what the author is trying to say at all. I think
> >the author is simply saying that no decent ranch manager would allow
> >their range to be managed that way, or their cattle to suffer like the
> >bison. He's suggesting that Yellowstone needs to be managed more like
> >modern ranches to fix these "problems".
>
> He's trying to imply that the rancher-driven solution to the
out-migration
> of bison this year - massive slaughter - was the right solution not just
> because of disease potential, but for humane and scientific management
> reasons. In other words, his letter is meant to bolster the cause of
> those who would force the Park to choose between the current policy,
> or managing the bison like cattle.
I think you are exactly right, at least in the fact that he was trying to
make a case for managing the Park's bison like cattle. A cause I don't
support.
>
> The letter is a political missive, intended to appeal to the emotions,
> the ranching community's equivalent of Greenpeace's doe-eyed baby
> fur seals.
>
> Brent, the western ranching interests are consumate politicians, damned
> good at it. They kick conservationist butt time-after-time, not because
> they're hicks, but because they're sophisticated at driving the system.
> I read this man's letter entirely in that context, after all he's
> the head of a livestock organization, mentions having met with
> newspeople. Just out to see for himself? Oh, right. The man
> clearly had a personal agenda and the hired spinmeisters probably
> wrote the piece before he left on his trip.
You are probably right in this case. I have to admit that my
interpretation of this letter was flavored by previous letters and personal
conversations with ranchers who I know to be people with high ethical
standards and a genuine concern for the welfare of Yellowstone's bison.
These people take their roles as stewards of the land and their livestock
very seriously. The problem, I believe, is that view range management from
a very narrow set of values and have difficulty understand management
objectives that have results contrary to what they believe is right. They
simply don't understand why we would allow the bison to suffer and starve
when there are things that could be done to stop it.
Back to your assessment of the letter, the question remains, what do the
ranchers hope to gain by having the Park's bison ranched like cattle? My
guess is that they think painting the NPS as incompetent managers will give
them more authority over keeping bison off of lands outside the Park. Is
that what you're thinking?
--
----------------------------------------------------
Brent L. Brock
Kansas State University
Dept. Agronomy, Range Science
blb...@ksu.edu
----------------------------------------------------
Don Baccus
In article <334FBC...@magicnet.net>, Vaughan <Vau...@magicnet.net> wrote:
>Don Baccus wrote:
>Sorry, Don. I was referring to lands which have have had to deal with
>grazers, i.e., grazing lands around Yellowstone.
Thanks. We should be very careful about our phraseology regarding
grazing, because unwarranted extrapolations seem to be the rule rather
than the exception.
Don Baccus
In article <01bc4768$d85a51e0$14588281@Ranger>,
Brent L. Brock <blb...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>Along the same line, just because and area lacks a natural
>history of grazing, doesn't mean all grazing will create damage.
Or that such damage will be unacceptable at least if restricted to
a portion of the range. Most conservationists merely plead that
grazing be managed in a way that leaves us with healthy populations
of the fauna and flora of various ecosystems (not just in zoos or
herbariums, either!)
>You are probably right in this case. I have to admit that my
>interpretation of this letter was flavored by previous letters and personal
>conversations with ranchers who I know to be people with high ethical
>standards and a genuine concern for the welfare of Yellowstone's bison.
>These people take their roles as stewards of the land and their livestock
>very seriously. The problem, I believe, is that view range management from
>a very narrow set of values and have difficulty understand management
>objectives that have results contrary to what they believe is right. They
>simply don't understand why we would allow the bison to suffer and starve
>when there are things that could be done to stop it.
I agree with this, and probably the rancher who wrote the piece earnestly
believes in the rightness of his position. I only disagreed with your
statement of his motives for acting. Western ranchers often seem like
hayseeds on the outside, but those who've thrived and prospered for
generations are shrewd operators. Success here has dependent upon
manipulation of the political process and flexing of economic power
locally since the first cow came West.
They're way too clever to let this opportunity slip by, but this
doesn't conflict with the notion that their views are honestly held.
>Back to your assessment of the letter, the question remains, what do the
>ranchers hope to gain by having the Park's bison ranched like cattle? My
>guess is that they think painting the NPS as incompetent managers will give
>them more authority over keeping bison off of lands outside the Park. Is
>that what you're thinking?
Exactly.
Additionally, many rural Westerners just want to make life difficult
for federal agencies (all of them) on principle. They resent the
federal presence, without which we conservationists could be run out
of the picture, so thoroughly and deeply that they'll not miss any
chance to paint them as incompetent. You can't sit down and have a
beer with the average rancher without getting an earful claiming
that the feds never do anything right, even in Frenchglen where
the conversation is punctuated by winnowing snipe and guttural
sandhill crane calls across the street on the Malheur NWR...
Brent L. Brock
Don Baccus <dho...@pacifier.com> wrote in article
<5iok08$hgc$1...@news.pacifier.com>...
> In article <01bc4768$d85a51e0$14588281@Ranger>,
> Brent L. Brock <blb...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Or that such damage will be unacceptable at least if restricted to
> a portion of the range. Most conservationists merely plead that
> grazing be managed in a way that leaves us with healthy populations
> of the fauna and flora of various ecosystems (not just in zoos or
> herbariums, either!)
Good point!
>
>
> I agree with this, and probably the rancher who wrote the piece earnestly
> believes in the rightness of his position. I only disagreed with your
> statement of his motives for acting. Western ranchers often seem like
> hayseeds on the outside, but those who've thrived and prospered for
> generations are shrewd operators. Success here has dependent upon
> manipulation of the political process and flexing of economic power
> locally since the first cow came West.
>
> They're way too clever to let this opportunity slip by, but this
> doesn't conflict with the notion that their views are honestly held.
>
Apparently, cattlemen in the first half of this century literally owned the
politics in Kansas (I think they bought it from the railroads). Their
influence was so strong that they dictated the curriculum that would be
taught at the Veterinary College at the Kansas State Agricultural College
(now Kansas State University, a fine institution, indeed). Apparently a
dean was fired from the University when he tried to introduce small animal
medicine into the curriculum. Now half of all Kansans live in one of three
cities so the agricultural interests are pretty evenly balanced by urban
interests. I guess this works pretty well but it doesn't keep stupid
things from happening. Every now and then the idiots from the urban side
attempt to ban range burning in the State.
>
> Exactly.
>
> Additionally, many rural Westerners just want to make life difficult
> for federal agencies (all of them) on principle. They resent the
> federal presence, without which we conservationists could be run out
> of the picture, so thoroughly and deeply that they'll not miss any
> chance to paint them as incompetent. You can't sit down and have a
> beer with the average rancher without getting an earful claiming
> that the feds never do anything right, even in Frenchglen where
> the conversation is punctuated by winnowing snipe and guttural
> sandhill crane calls across the street on the Malheur NWR...
In Kansas there is a distinct shift in culture at about the 100th meridian
where the West begins. However, this culture extends east among the
ranching community. We have some folks that are extremely paranoid about
the Federal government even though we have less than 2% public land in the
State and very little Federal involvement. We recently got our first
National Park in Kansas, the Z-Bar ranch in the tallgrass prairie. Don't
plan your vacation though because it's not open to the public. At present,
there are no plans to put bison on the Park instead of cattle. This was
done to calm local paranoia that the government was going to FORCE all of
the areas ranchers to switch to bison. Good Lord! Somebody needs to stop
watching so much TV.
-----------------------------------------
Brent L. Brock
Kansas State University
R Walker
> It's worth it, though. Gives a new spin on the private property
> rights movement. Open Range laws are implemented on a county
> basis, and The Oregonian has already published one letter to the
> editor protesting Grant County's (where the offense occured) "taking"
> of the Doctor's property via the Open Range ordinance. Written tongue
> in cheek, of course, but it's a great example to toss in the face
> of pious property-rights speakers from ranching country.
Yall have some wierd laws out there. I can't imagine being able
to graze someone elses property without getting a lease from them
before hand. That just boggles the mind.
OTOH, if that is the law out there, why didn't the doc put up some
good barbed wire fencing and keep it maintained? That seems to
work relatively well down here.
You can't expect cows to always behave, but you can usually
do things to keep them where they belong most of the time....
Still, shooting someone elses cattle without paying for them
seems pretty extreme. I wouldn't club your dog to death just
cause he ran into my yard. And my wife dislikes dogs so its
not like I wouldn't be tempted....
--
Just a little spam revenge....; Want to be
added to my sig, send me commercial email.
ro...@cyberpromo.com , ro...@ispam.net
nto...@pophost.tricreations.com
Don Baccus
In article <01bc479c$31f855c0$1c0a6dce@tendo_dojo>,
R Walker <r...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>Yall have some wierd laws out there. I can't imagine being able
>to graze someone elses property without getting a lease from them
>before hand. That just boggles the mind.
Well, it should.
>OTOH, if that is the law out there, why didn't the doc put up some
>good barbed wire fencing and keep it maintained? That seems to
>work relatively well down here.
Elk knocked it down every winter. He checked and repaired fenceline
somewhat frequently. He didn't live on the land in question, but
in town - they were building a home with the intention of moving
there. It was a big chunk of land, couple hundred acres, something
like that.
>Still, shooting someone elses cattle without paying for them
>seems pretty extreme.
Yes, and he fessed up openly and has made no attempt to dodge
responsibility, though it seems strange that the offense carries
a potential of several years in prison. You'd think it would
be a civil case. The DA has made noise about making an out of
court settlement (i.e. get the Doc to pay off the rancher) and
drop criminal charges, but local public opinion is very, very strong
to convict and imprison the guy and after all the DA's an elected
official.
>I wouldn't club your dog to death just cause he ran into my yard.
Funny you should mention this...
Running parallel to this case was a case where two
dogs got out of their owner's yard (where they were fenced and
had not gotten into trouble before) and chased a neighbor's
sheep.
There's a state law here that requires dogs which harass livestock
to be put to death, whether or not the livestock were harmed. The
sheepowner insisted that the two dogs - family pets that I'll repeat
had never gotten out and harassed his or anyone else's livestock
before - be put to death. They were on "doggie death row" for a
month or more as their owners fought in court to save them. Finally
an out-of-court settlement was reached. It was all over our local
press along with the cow shooting.
It was fun to see spokespeople for livestock interests speak to the
press first about how it is vile to kill cows, then righteous to
kill dogs.
Maughan
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> In article <01bc479c$31f855c0$1c0a6dce@tendo_dojo>,
> R Walker <r...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >Yall have some wierd laws out there. I can't imagine being able
> >to graze someone elses property without getting a lease from them
> >before hand. That just boggles the mind.
>
> Well, it should.
[snip]
It sort of sounds like the laws are all rigged against those
not in the livestock business. Was this in NE Oregon?
I wonder if a lawsuit based on the 5th and 14th amendments
(which provides that Americans have "equal protection" under
that laws of the federal government, state and local govern-
ments) might work?
It has worked in many other areas -- racial segregation,
women's "reproductive freedom", etc.
Ralph Maughan
Don Baccus
>It sort of sounds like the laws are all rigged against those
>not in the livestock business. Was this in NE Oregon?
More like central Oregon (John Day). I'd be surprised if Idaho
does not have open-range laws, too. They're common in the West.
Nevada does, you see "open range" signs all along the roads - another
element of such laws is that you pay for a cow if you hit it,
rather than the rancher paying you because his cow was on the
road.
>I wonder if a lawsuit based on the 5th and 14th amendments
>(which provides that Americans have "equal protection" under
>that laws of the federal government, state and local govern-
>ments) might work?
Go for it! I don't know if there's ever been a constitutional
challenge to such laws. It isn't clear that the plaintiff would
live long enough to see the Supreme Court take it up...
R Walker
> >OTOH, if that is the law out there, why didn't the doc put up some
> >good barbed wire fencing and keep it maintained? That seems to
> >work relatively well down here.
>
> Elk knocked it down every winter. He checked and repaired fenceline
> somewhat frequently. He didn't live on the land in question, but
> in town - they were building a home with the intention of moving
Hmmm, it sounding more and more like the doc had a clueless
attack if you ask me. He was going to move in and *live* next to
these folks who's cows he shot????? Pardon me if that boggles
my mind more than wierd Oregon laws even. Maybe he likes
ulcers or something, but there HAS to be something wrong with
his brain.
I'm just glad I live in Texas. Sheesh.
> It was fun to see spokespeople for livestock interests speak to the
> press first about how it is vile to kill cows, then righteous to
> kill dogs.
Well there is a difference between someone just choosing to kill
cows because they misbehave, and the law requireing dogs that
harrass livestock to be put to death. Its the ole vigilante question.
I can use deadly force to protect my life, and my property at night,
but I can't go out and hunt down the person who might have killed
a friend of mine.
Also, I dunno if its "righteous" or "vile" killing any animal, heck the
"animal protection" folks kill thousands upon thousands every year
in the name of population control. So I don't know where anyone
gets off making this into a righteousness issue.
> There's a state law here that requires dogs which harass livestock
> to be put to death, whether or not the livestock were harmed. The
> sheepowner insisted that the two dogs - family pets that I'll repeat
Yall need to change these laws into civil things. You know, pay
three times damages plus x thousand in punatives. No sense killing
the dog for just being a dog, put the hurt on the owner who didn't
control the animal. Same for cows, same for killing cows.
R Walker
> Nevada does, you see "open range" signs all along the roads - another
> element of such laws is that you pay for a cow if you hit it,
> rather than the rancher paying you because his cow was on the
> road.
Uh, there I have to agree with the ranchers. You hit a cow,
kill a cow, whatever, you should pay for it. Its not like they
have enough brains and eyesight to know to get out of the
way. And driving is a priveledge, not a right, you do so at
the pleasure of the state, according to rules set by the state
as to who has right of way, your responsibilities, etc.
I suggest, if you are driving so fast that you can't avoid a
target that is as still as a cow, maybe you are driving to
fast.
kktaylor
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> In article <01bc479c$31f855c0$1c0a6dce@tendo_dojo>,
> R Walker <r...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >OTOH, if that is the law out there, why didn't the doc put up some
> >good barbed wire fencing and keep it maintained? That seems to
> >work relatively well down here.
>
> Elk knocked it down every winter. He checked and repaired fenceline
> somewhat frequently. He didn't live on the land in question, but
> in town - they were building a home with the intention of moving
> there. It was a big chunk of land, couple hundred acres, something
> like that.
Here across the river, we build fences that the elk can jump over but
the cattle can't cross. Maybe the doctor is a piss-poor fence builder
like city folks tend to be. It could be that the Oregon elk are a little
more rowdy that Idaho elk. Was it one of those 1x6 rail "californian"
fences?
> >I wouldn't club your dog to death just cause he ran into my yard.
>
> Funny you should mention this...
>
> Running parallel to this case was a case where two
> dogs got out of their owner's yard (where they were fenced and
> had not gotten into trouble before) and chased a neighbor's
> sheep.
>
> There's a state law here that requires dogs which harass livestock
> to be put to death, whether or not the livestock were harmed The
> sheepowner insisted that the two dogs - family pets that I'll repeat
> had never gotten out and harassed his or anyone else's livestock
> before - be put to death. They were on "doggie death row" for a
> month or more as their owners fought in court to save them. Finally
> an out-of-court settlement was reached. It was all over our local
> press along with the cow shooting.
More important than the law is being a good neighbor. Urbanites that
move to rural areas need to understand that there are different neigh-
borly traditions. A guy bought the 40 acres next to me a couple of years
ago. He's got everybody around him pissed off because he won't do any-
thing to control his gopher problem. His gopher problem is now everybody
elses.
>
> It was fun to see spokespeople for livestock interests speak to the
> press first about how it is vile to kill cows, then righteous to
> kill dogs.
It makes good business sense to me.
Kelly
Dwight U. Bartholomew
R Walker wrote:
>
> Yall need to change these laws into civil things. You know, pay
> three times damages plus x thousand in punatives. No sense killing
> the dog for just being a dog, put the hurt on the owner who didn't
> control the animal. Same for cows, same for killing cows.
I've visited farms with signs saying "please don't bother the sheep"
(the LBJ center near Johnson City, TX) but have still seen little kids
chasing the sheep. Perhaps the farmer should insist that the
kids be put to death. :-)
To the case in point, though, it sounds like the sheep owner is being
a horse's ass. He may have the law behind him but every case must
be judged by the specifics that surround it.
Dwight
Brent L. Brock
R Walker <r...@neosoft.com> wrote in article
<01bc4852$f1784340$1c0a6dce@tendo_dojo>...
> > Nevada does, you see "open range" signs all along the roads - another
> > element of such laws is that you pay for a cow if you hit it,
> > rather than the rancher paying you because his cow was on the
> > road.
>
> Uh, there I have to agree with the ranchers. You hit a cow,
> kill a cow, whatever, you should pay for it. Its not like they
> have enough brains and eyesight to know to get out of the
> way. And driving is a priveledge, not a right, you do so at
> the pleasure of the state, according to rules set by the state
> as to who has right of way, your responsibilities, etc.
>
This is WAY off topic but I just can't pass up responding to this. Where I
come from, the law is as it should be. An owner is liable for any damage
that an animal (any animal) does outside of the owners property. If a cow
gets onto a public road, then the cow's owner is liable for damages
provided the claimant was acting in a legal and prudent manor. It is not
illegal to have livestock on public roads, but the owner IS responsible.
This all makes sense to me because taxpayers spend a lot of money for the
government to build and maintain relatively safe and efficient roadways.
While the government can't eliminate all perils that may exist on public
roadways, I think they have a responsibility to make laws that are
consistent with minimizing these perils. Passing laws that grant livestock
free access to public roadways AND absolving the livestock owners of all
responsibility is not consistent with the governments responsibility to
minimize perils. At the very least, the responsibility should fall to both
parties, since an argument can be made that motorists are warned of
potential danger. However, even with warnings, prudent drivers can not
ALWAYS avoid livestock collisions. A black Angus on dark asphalt at night
would be pretty hard to detect even at reasonable speeds. Also, cattle
don't just stand around. Sometimes they hit you. If you don't believe
this, read my next paragraph.
> I suggest, if you are driving so fast that you can't avoid a
> target that is as still as a cow, maybe you are driving to
> fast.
A few years ago, I was driving to work, well within the legal speed limit.
As I crested a hill I was surprised to see a Texas longhorn running full
tilt up the hill straight at me. Thanks to high performance brakes, I was
able to get stopped but the longhorn was still running. I was in a tiny
convertible sports car and the longhorn had to make a choice whether to go
over me, or around me. Fortunately, the longhorn went around. A woman on
horseback who was trying to coral the animal breathed a huge sigh of
relief, but, by the look on her face before, I'll bet there is a permanent
crease in that saddle from a mighty butt pinch. I know there is a crease
in my car seat, and a wet spot to boot. Had I hit that longhorn, would I
have been at fault?
--
----------------------------------------------------
Brent L. Brock
Kansas State University
Dept. Agronomy, Range Science
blb...@ksu.edu
----------------------------------------------------
>
Jeff Wilson
California has the law that allows a stock owner to kill maurading
dogs. Pet owners never can believe that their nice pet dog becomes a
killer when it runs into livestock. I have seem where three or four
of the nicest pet dogs around have mangled a half a dozen sheep in a
few minutes. Where, as in almost all of CA, the urbanization has put
subdivisions within 1/4 mile of cattle, sheep or goat farmers, the
urban dog becomes a substantial threat to the livelihood of the stock
raiser. The problem with collecting damages from the dog owner is
that you have to have good pictures of the dog attacking the animal
before you can get the owner to pay up. Since most attacks occur when
there is no one around, state law allows a stock owner to kill dogs
who attack stock.
California also has the open range law in several counties. It made
sense yoears ago when the roads were rarely used and fencing was
financially porhibitive. Recently, the law was modified by an
apellate court to hold the rancher liable on well travelled roads
where the rancher reasonable knew that his stock were laying down on
the road at night. Since the roads are posted as open range, the
driver should have the same responsibity to drive carefully that we
would expect in areas of high wildlife population, or hwere there are
a lot of kids at play in the streets.
Part of the problem is that there is a growning politically correct
belief that cattle and sheep raising are evil unless done in small
flocks by susbsitance farming native americans (ie, Navahos raising
their own sheep. IMHO the problem is overgrazing of both public and
private land and the underpayment for the use of public land. But
then, I', not vegan so I don't feel eating meat or raising animals for
food is imoral or cruel.
|Jeff Wilson jrwi...@gv.net
|
|...... Seek harmony and balance in the mountains, find harmony and balance within.....
Scott Linn
kktaylor (kkta...@micron.net) wrote:
: More important than the law is being a good neighbor. Urbanites that
: move to rural areas need to understand that there are different neigh-
: borly traditions. A guy bought the 40 acres next to me a couple of years
: ago. He's got everybody around him pissed off because he won't do any-
: thing to control his gopher problem. His gopher problem is now everybody
: elses.
Oh, I love it!
Some guys cows can wander around free and forage on someone's land, but he
can't do anything to the cows and it's his fault for not building a good
enough fence. The owner doesn't have ANY responsibility for keeping his cows
IN.
On the other hand, this other guy gets in trouble because he DOESN'T "control"
the gophers which are natural, and living under his land.
What a consistent argument.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Scott Linn
CMOS IC Design Engineer
Hewlett-Packard Integrated Circuits Business Division - Corvallis, OR
e-mail: sc...@cv.hp.com phone: (541)715-4033 fax: (541)715-2145
________________________________________________________________________
Spam fodder: ro...@cyberpromo.com, ro...@ispam.net
Brent L. Brock
Brent L. Brock <blb...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote in article
<01bc48fb$04f9c440$14588281@Ranger>...
>
> This is WAY off topic but I just can't pass up responding to this. Where
I
> come from, the law is as it should be. An owner is liable for any damage
> that an animal (any animal) does outside of the owners property. If a
cow
> gets onto a public road, then the cow's owner is liable for damages
> provided the claimant was acting in a legal and prudent manor. It is not
> illegal to have livestock on public roads, but the owner IS responsible.
>
I don't want to drag this out any further but I need to amend what I had
written. I did some more checking and, in Kansas, a rancher is only liable
for the damage done to other property if he/she is negligent. If the
rancher maintains good fences, checks cattle regularly, etc., and a storm,
or other unavoidable event, causes his/her cattle to escape, then the
rancher is not liable for damages. However, never would a motorist be
liable for a cow they hit unless they willfully hit an animal they could
have easily avoided. Applying this to open range, the responsibility would
be shared. A motorist assumes risk by driving in open range but a rancher
also assumes risk by grazing his/her cattle where they could be potentially
hit by a car.
--
-----------------------------------------
Brent L. Brock
Kansas State University
R Walker
> crease in that saddle from a mighty butt pinch. I know there is a crease
> in my car seat, and a wet spot to boot. Had I hit that longhorn, would I
> have been at fault?
You didn't include the important part. Each state controls its right
of way laws that determine who is responsible for what on public roads.
In the case we were talking about, the state in question has laws that
basically give cattle right of way on public roads. You do not have a
right to drive a car on public roads, it is a priveledge granted to you
conditioned upon your acceptance of state law regarding who is responsible
for what types of accidents.
In Texas for instance, if you rear-end someone, you are *ALWAYS* at
fault, no exceptions, no exclusions. Yet we all know that a clever
or malicious person ahead of you can manuever to make such an event
unavoidable. Maybe that excuses you from moral responsibility for
the accident, but you or your insurance company are still going to be
the ones writing the check.
James Berry
Brent L. Brock wrote:
>
>
> A few years ago, I was driving to work, well within the legal speed limit.
> As I crested a hill I was surprised to see a Texas longhorn running full
> tilt up the hill straight at me. Thanks to high performance brakes, I was
> able to get stopped but the longhorn was still running. I was in a tiny
> convertible sports car and the longhorn had to make a choice whether to go
> over me, or around me. Fortunately, the longhorn went around. A woman on
> horseback who was trying to coral the animal breathed a huge sigh of
> relief, but, by the look on her face before, I'll bet there is a permanent
> crease in that saddle from a mighty butt pinch. I know there is a crease
> in my car seat, and a wet spot to boot. Had I hit that longhorn, would I
> have been at fault?
Here in Texas you'd likely been shot;-)
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Brent L. Brock
> Kansas State University
Don Baccus
In article <01bc4945$dcbee3c0$6682...@sage.jc.net>,
Brent L. Brock <blb...@ksu.edu> wrote:
>I don't want to drag this out any further but I need to amend what I had
>written. I did some more checking and, in Kansas, a rancher is only liable
>for the damage done to other property if he/she is negligent. If the
>rancher maintains good fences, checks cattle regularly, etc., and a storm,
>or other unavoidable event, causes his/her cattle to escape, then the
>rancher is not liable for damages. However, never would a motorist be
>liable for a cow they hit unless they willfully hit an animal they could
>have easily avoided.
Or if they are driving negligently, for instance blowing a 0.10 or
whatever the limit is in your state.
The way you describe the cattle owner's liability is rational.
>Applying this to open range, the responsibility would
>be shared. A motorist assumes risk by driving in open range but a rancher
>also assumes risk by grazing his/her cattle where they could be potentially
>hit by a car.
Originally, open range meant fenceless range, so absolving the
rancher of liability made sense, though it still makes no sense
(to me at least) to make the driver pay for the cow unless the
driver's negligent. In other words, with no fence it would make
sense for the driver and rancher to each shrug their shoulders
and pay for their own losses.
But, posted open range today is very often fenced, and the law
isn't modified to recognize that change.
Don Baccus
In article <01bc494f$8b22d0d0$4d1d6dce@tendo_dojo>,
R Walker <r...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>You do not have a
>right to drive a car on public roads, it is a priveledge granted to you
>conditioned upon your acceptance of state law regarding who is responsible
>for what types of accidents.
Of course I accept my responsibity under the law. However, nothing in
the law says I have to agree with the notion that it's just and proper,
nor is there anything in the law that suggests I must refrain from
attempting to change the law in order to enjoy the privilege of
driving granted me by the state.
>In Texas for instance, if you rear-end someone, you are *ALWAYS* at
>fault, no exceptions, no exclusions. Yet we all know that a clever
>or malicious person ahead of you can manuever to make such an event
>unavoidable. Maybe that excuses you from moral responsibility for
>the accident, but you or your insurance company are still going to be
>the ones writing the check.
Are you arguing that this law is right?
In your earlier post, you didn't simply say "you must accept the
responsibilities the law burdens you with".
You said you AGREED with the law. In other words, that you feel that
states which treat cows like other animals have laws that are less
just than states which have open range laws.
Don Baccus
> Here across the river, we build fences that the elk can jump over but
>the cattle can't cross. Maybe the doctor is a piss-poor fence builder
>like city folks tend to be.
Since he hired a wrangler to move the cows rather than attempt to
do so himself, and since the amount of fence involved was lengthy,
I suspect he hired the local cowboy types to fence his land for
him.
The land in question is fairly high in elevation, and gets a LOT
of snow. Elk don't jump so good in several feet of snow, and
when hungry are motivated to go wherever they can get food.
>It could be that the Oregon elk are a little
>more rowdy that Idaho elk. Was it one of those 1x6 rail "californian"
>fences?
Standard barbed wire, most folks use four strands on Oregon range.
> More important than the law is being a good neighbor. Urbanites that
>move to rural areas need to understand that there are different neigh-
>borly traditions.
These people controlled their dogs, had a fenced yard. The dogs got
out by accident, and the sheepowner agreed that as far as he knew,
the dogs had never gotten out before and that the owners were diligent.
You sure are quick to jump to conclusions, Kelly.
>> It was fun to see spokespeople for livestock interests speak to the
>> press first about how it is vile to kill cows, then righteous to
>> kill dogs.
> It makes good business sense to me.
The self-interest is obvious and not humorous.
The humor lies in the fact that they speak of it being MORALLY wrong
to shoot a cow (though not slaughter it), and MORALLY right to kill
the dogs even though they hadn't harmed the sheep in question and
even though the owners were willing to give up the dogs to one of
the literally dozens of city dwellers who offered to give them a
new home.
Don Baccus
In article <01bc4852$f1784340$1c0a6dce@tendo_dojo>,
R Walker <r...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>Uh, there I have to agree with the ranchers. You hit a cow,
>kill a cow, whatever, you should pay for it. Its not like they
>have enough brains and eyesight to know to get out of the
>way. And driving is a priveledge, not a right, you do so at
>the pleasure of the state, according to rules set by the state
>as to who has right of way, your responsibilities, etc.
>I suggest, if you are driving so fast that you can't avoid a
>target that is as still as a cow, maybe you are driving to
>fast.
Even without open range laws, if I'm driving at an unsafe speed,
or am unattentive, or whatever, I can be held liable for killing
a cow (or hitting something or whatever). On the other hand, without
open range laws the rancher could be held negligent in some cases.
It would all depend on circumstances. This is how most auto-related
incidents are resolved - fault is determined, and the one at fault
pays (usually their insurance companies work all this out).
Of course, usually with, say, a dog or whatever, no one pays
anything, at least in my experience here in Oregon.
Open range laws are weird because the driver must ALWAYS pay, regardless
of circumstances.
And, cows aren't always sitting still. My dad almost hit a black
angus at night that trotted into the roadway from a deep (six foot
or so) ditch. Only luck he missed it. No way you could attribute
that to negligent driving. He was driving reasonably and prudently,
as our Basic Rule put it back in those days. And, I've been in
a Vanagon that was charged by a bull which actively TRIED to hit
us, the driver having to swerve suddenly on gravel to miss it.
These laws wouldn't bother me if all pets, etc, were given the
same carte blanche protection. It's not clear to me why livestock
alone should get it.
Don Baccus
In article <01bc48fb$04f9c440$14588281@Ranger>,
Brent L. Brock <blb...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>Had I hit that longhorn, would I have been at fault?
Since the woman was chasing it, in Oregon at least I think you'd
have a chance to beat the open range law in this case. But, I'm
no lawyer, and don't know for sure.
If the woman hadn't been there and the sucker hit your car, the
default position is that you owe for damage to the cow. If you
could prove somehow that the cow ran into you, you might have some
way of beating it (don't know for sure) but how would you do
so without witnesses?
Don Baccus
>California has the law that allows a stock owner to kill maurading
>dogs. Pet owners never can believe that their nice pet dog becomes a
>killer when it runs into livestock.
Oregon's law goes far beyond that. It requires the state (or county,
some guvmint organ) to kill dogs which harass livestock, regardless
of any actual harm done, and regardless of whether or not action's
taken to prevent a recurrance. For instance, even if the owner
finds the dog a new home in the city where there's no chance of
a repeat offence, our law requires the dog to be put to death.
I think most people feel that a rancher has the right to protect
his or her property, including killing a marauding dog on his
or her land.
But Oregon's law is excessive, IMO.
>California also has the open range law in several counties. It made
>sense yoears ago when the roads were rarely used and fencing was
>financially porhibitive. Recently, the law was modified by an
>apellate court to hold the rancher liable on well travelled roads
>where the rancher reasonable knew that his stock were laying down on
>the road at night. Since the roads are posted as open range, the
>driver should have the same responsibity to drive carefully that we
>would expect in areas of high wildlife population, or hwere there are
>a lot of kids at play in the streets.
This seems like a fair ruling to me. I don't know anything about
recent case law regarding open range and autos in Oregon.
>Part of the problem is that there is a growning politically correct
>belief that cattle and sheep raising are evil unless done in small
>flocks by susbsitance farming native americans (ie, Navahos raising
>their own sheep. IMHO the problem is overgrazing of both public and
>private land and the underpayment for the use of public land. But
>then, I', not vegan so I don't feel eating meat or raising animals for
>food is imoral or cruel.
Now, this is quite a leap you've made. I'm not vegetarian and
would agree with the two comments you've made regarding grazing.
Most urban folks who are taken by surprise by either the doggy law
or the open range laws aren't even conservationists...
Don Baccus
In article <01bc4852$8f2b29a0$1c0a6dce@tendo_dojo>,
R Walker <r...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>Hmmm, it sounding more and more like the doc had a clueless
>attack if you ask me. He was going to move in and *live* next to
>these folks who's cows he shot????? Pardon me if that boggles
>my mind more than wierd Oregon laws even. Maybe he likes
>ulcers or something, but there HAS to be something wrong with
>his brain.
First, he was building the house long before the cows were shot.
You've got the sequence of events wrong.
Second, ranchers in eastern Oregon often move their cows from
allotment-to-allotment at different times of year and may not
live within fifty miles of it. Since this is up in the mountains,
I suspect it's summer range. Often the cows are moved to this
range and are essentially feral, the rancher won't see them until
fall round-up.
>I'm just glad I live in Texas. Sheesh.
Cattle raising's different in Texas. For one thing, besides being
mostly private property, Texas overall is much flatter than Oregon.
Cattle have to be moved seasonally in Oregon if they're to be grazed
on the range, long distances and usually 3-4 thousand feet in
elevation (in the semi-arid eastern part of the state, that is).
>Also, I dunno if its "righteous" or "vile" killing any animal, heck the
>"animal protection" folks kill thousands upon thousands every year
>in the name of population control. So I don't know where anyone
>gets off making this into a righteousness issue.
That's why it's so funny to see ranchers, who raise cattle for
market (and we don't mean petting zoos, do we?) speaking of the
immorality of "shooting a poor old cow".
They'll probably be shakin' their heads over it at the next branding
and castration round-up...
kktaylor
Scott Linn wrote:
>
> kktaylor (kkta...@micron.net) wrote:
>
> : More important than the law is being a good neighbor. Urbanites that
> : move to rural areas need to understand that there are different neigh-
> : ago. He's got everybody around him pissed off because he won't do any-
> : thing to control his gopher problem. His gopher problem is now everybody
> : elses.
>
> Oh, I love it!
>
> Some guys cows can wander around free and forage on someone's land, but he
> can't do anything to the cows and it's his fault for not building a good
> enough fence. The owner doesn't have ANY responsibility for keeping his cows
> IN.
>
> On the other hand, this other guy gets in trouble because he DOESN'T "control"
> the gophers which are natural, and living under his land.
>
> What a consistent argument.
You're talking apples and oranges. My neighbor feeds beef cows in what
used to be his dairy. If his cows get out and start foraging in my hay,
he's responsible for any damage his cows do. We both live on irrigated
farmland and not on open range. The open range law makes perfectly good
business sense. When you buy real estate, It's up to you to understand
what you are getting into. The smart thing for the doctor to do would be
to buy some cattle of his own and register a brand, If his neighbors
have 5,000 unfenced acres adjacent to his 200, his cows will have 5,200
acres to graze. If he had enough cows and refused to fence in his prop-
erty, his neighbors would be forced to fence his 5,000 acres so he
didn't have to share his grass with the docs' cows. The docs' neighbors
would probably then be more than happy to split the materials and labor
and show him how to build a real fence around his 200 acres. Can you see
how these rural laws are made so that reasonable people can settle
disputes by themselves?
Kelly
Brent L. Brock
James Berry <James...@SEMATECH.ORG> wrote in article
<5j09mt$k...@pulitzer.eng.sematech.org>...
> Brent L. Brock wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > A few years ago, I was driving to work, well within the legal speed
limit.
> > As I crested a hill I was surprised to see a Texas longhorn running
full
> > tilt up the hill straight at me. Thanks to high performance brakes, I
was
> > able to get stopped but the longhorn was still running. I was in a
tiny
> > convertible sports car and the longhorn had to make a choice whether to
go
> > over me, or around me. Fortunately, the longhorn went around. A woman
on
> > horseback who was trying to coral the animal breathed a huge sigh of
> > relief, but, by the look on her face before, I'll bet there is a
permanent
> > crease in that saddle from a mighty butt pinch. I know there is a
crease
> > in my car seat, and a wet spot to boot. Had I hit that longhorn, would
I
> > have been at fault?
>
> Here in Texas you'd likely been shot;-)
>
For driving a German car I presume. <vbg> I'd still like to know who is
going to pay for that pee stain.
Brent
R Walker
Don Baccus <dho...@pacifier.com> wrote in article <5j0shv$3og$1...@news.pacifier.com>...
> In article <01bc4852$8f2b29a0$1c0a6dce@tendo_dojo>,
> R Walker <r...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >Hmmm, it sounding more and more like the doc had a clueless
> >attack if you ask me. He was going to move in and *live* next to
> >these folks who's cows he shot????? Pardon me if that boggles
> >my mind more than wierd Oregon laws even. Maybe he likes
> >ulcers or something, but there HAS to be something wrong with
> >his brain.
>
> First, he was building the house long before the cows were shot.
> You've got the sequence of events wrong.
>
> Second, ranchers in eastern Oregon often move their cows from
> allotment-to-allotment at different times of year and may not
> live within fifty miles of it. Since this is up in the mountains,
> I suspect it's summer range. Often the cows are moved to this
> range and are essentially feral, the rancher won't see them until
> fall round-up.
Ok, that clears it up a little, most of the time, down here, when
you have cattle, likely as not they are within a few miles/yards of
your house, and in fact, you may have barbed wire up around an acre or
so of land on which your house sits, to keep the cows from trampling
the azaleas, tomatoes, and rose bushes....
Still, it doesn't really matter who was there first, common sense
tells me that you don't shoot something expensive when you are going
to be stuck there for the random 3am revenge run. That seems to
just be asking for vigilate trouble....
Don Baccus
> You're talking apples and oranges. My neighbor feeds beef cows in what
>used to be his dairy. If his cows get out and start foraging in my hay,
>he's responsible for any damage his cows do. We both live on irrigated
>farmland and not on open range. The open range law makes perfectly good
>business sense.
If you lived in Grant County, Oregon, you would be subject to the
open range law whether or not your farmland was irrigated.
Do you still think it makes perfectly good business sense, or is your
feeling on this matter influenced by the fact that it's not YOUR land
which is suject to the law?
>When you buy real estate, It's up to you to understand
>what you are getting into.
Can I save this for the next Wise User who bitches about wetlands
protection? Can I depend on your support of the position that
when you buy real estate, you should understand that the government
has a right to protect public assets which happen to be located
on your land?
Or are you going to do what western ranchers do, and only hew to
this principle when it favors cattlemen?
>Can you see
>how these rural laws are made so that reasonable people can settle
>disputes by themselves?
Yep, the rancher involved has a real reputation for being reasonable, having
settled a dispute with his bro-in-law a couple of decades ago with
eight gunshots, settling it forever.
Don Baccus
In article <01bc4a0b$acb99370$741d6dce@tendo_dojo>,
R Walker <r...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>Still, it doesn't really matter who was there first, common sense
>tells me that you don't shoot something expensive when you are going
>to be stuck there for the random 3am revenge run. That seems to
>just be asking for vigilate trouble....
The doctor has publicly stated that he was wrong to shoot the cows.
And I agree that he was. But I certainly can understand his frustration
with a law that gives the rancher every motivation to do nothing to
try and keep his cows off the docs property.
Absent the open range law, the cattleman would've been liable for
any actual damage to the doc's property and therefore would've been
motivated to help work out a solution.
R Walker
Don Baccus <dho...@pacifier.com> wrote in article <5j2mha$k9v$1...@news.pacifier.com>...
> In article <01bc4a0b$acb99370$741d6dce@tendo_dojo>,
> R Walker <r...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>
> >Still, it doesn't really matter who was there first, common sense
> >tells me that you don't shoot something expensive when you are going
> >to be stuck there for the random 3am revenge run. That seems to
> >just be asking for vigilate trouble....
>
> The doctor has publicly stated that he was wrong to shoot the cows.
> And I agree that he was. But I certainly can understand his frustration
> with a law that gives the rancher every motivation to do nothing to
> try and keep his cows off the docs property.
>
> Absent the open range law, the cattleman would've been liable for
> any actual damage to the doc's property and therefore would've been
> motivated to help work out a solution.
Right. And let me state it *one* more time for everyone, so they
can get a grasp on this. I do not support nor not support the law
as written. Texas is the only place I ever intend to live and we
do not have "open range". You put your cows on my property, you
are going to pay me for the priveledge, unless we are friends and
I'm not doing anything with a particular field, in which case, maybe
you'd like to take me to your uncles deer lease in South Texas,
but I digress....
I am suggesting that folks who break the law are not due any
sympathy. If you can not be troubled to find out the legal
ramifications of your actions before you go shooting up the
countryside, then you deserve what you get. I have to obey
both the laws I agree with, and the ones that I don't; I think
I have a right to expect the same of other people as well.
I have *nothing* against trying to get the law changed, but again
THAT effort does not in any way excuse breaking the law as it
currently is written.
Don Baccus
In article <01bc4ab0$0d514260$4b1d6dce@tendo_dojo>,
R Walker <r...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>I am suggesting that folks who break the law are not due any
>sympathy.
No problem with that. And the Doc in question hasn't been seeking
any. My daily, The Oregonian, had a feature last week that pretty
much put it right - it laid out the facts, made no attempt to garner
sympathy for the Doc, but also pointed out that the locals were
being pretty nasty as well and that it is, from many perpesctives,
a STRANGE set of laws that rule out in Grant county.
>If you can not be troubled to find out the legal
>ramifications of your actions before you go shooting up the
>countryside, then you deserve what you get.
I think he was aware that he'd have to pay for the cows, but was
unaware that it was a criminal offense (felony up to five years).
Ignorance is no defense, of course, in moral as well as legal terms,
but I think he fully expected to pay for the cows when he did the
deed. He made no attempt to hide the fact that he did it, and freely
admitted it.
>I have to obey
>both the laws I agree with, and the ones that I don't; I think
>I have a right to expect the same of other people as well.
Well, actually you don't. You have to be willing to accept the
consequences of breaking the law. I only point this out because
certain types of law-breaking are time-honored methods of civil
disobedience. Since yesterday was the 50th anniversary of Jackie
Robinson's first start with the Brooklyn Dodgers, it's worth pointing
out that he was court-martialed as an Army Lt. for not sitting in
the back of the bus when ordered to by an enlisted bus driver (though
Jackie actually won that case).
At first I thought the Doc might've meant this as such an action,
but he's been quick to squelch any such notion by stating he did
it out of extreme frustration and was wrong to lose self-control,
i.e. it wasn't an attempt to publicize the inequity of the law.
rick etter
Don Baccus wrote:
>
>
> >When you buy real estate, It's up to you to understand
> >what you are getting into.
>
> Can I save this for the next Wise User who bitches about wetlands
> protection? Can I depend on your support of the position that
> when you buy real estate, you should understand that the government
> has a right to protect public assets which happen to be located
> on your land?
>
>
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
> Nature photos, on-line guides, at (NEW) http://donb.photo.net
Go ahead and use it Don, even if the landowner is right it doesn't stop
FWS from sending in their pit-bulls.
--
Rick Etter Canoe North!
http://www.bright.net/~retter
Keep your stick on the ice -- and your paddle wet!
Don Baccus
In article <335562...@bright.net>, rick etter <ret...@bright.net> wrote:
>Don Baccus wrote:
>Go ahead and use it Don, even if the landowner is right it doesn't stop
>FWS from sending in their pit-bulls.
Ummm...you've not provided any details on the easement the farmer was paid
for by the FWS. We've got the 8th Circuit's word that the landowner/farmer
was wrong, and only your word (and the farmer's) that he was right.
--
Vaughan
R Walker wrote:
>
> Right. And let me state it *one* more time for everyone, so they
> can get a grasp on this. I do not support nor not support the law
> as written.
???????
> Texas is the only place I ever intend to live and we
> do not have "open range". You put your cows on my property, you
> are going to pay me for the priveledge, unless we are friends and
> I'm not doing anything with a particular field, in which case, maybe
> you'd like to take me to your uncles deer lease in South Texas,
> but I digress....
>
> I am suggesting that folks who break the law are not due any
> sympathy. If you can not be troubled to find out the legal
> ramifications of your actions before you go shooting up the
> countryside, then you deserve what you get. I have to obey
> both the laws I agree with, and the ones that I don't; I think
> I have a right to expect the same of other people as well.
So why was Chad McKittrick given such a pity party when he was given six
months for shooting that wolf from Yellowstone? You should read some of
the stuff about how "...violated" his rights were. Absolutely
nauseating, the lot of it.
> I have *nothing* against trying to get the law changed, but again
> THAT effort does not in any way excuse breaking the law as it
> currently is written.
>
Thank you, I completely agree with this. If something seems unfair, then
it *can* be changed by us, the people. Hello? Democracy, anyone?
_________________________________________________________________________
"Big" Drew Vaughan
vau...@magicnet.net
http://www.FurNation.com/big_drew (Furry Art!)
Vaughan
rick etter wrote:
>
> Go ahead and use it Don, even if the landowner is right it doesn't stop
> FWS from sending in their pit-bulls.
Yup, funny you mention the term *landowner*. Gee, those Native Americans
were the original *landowners* here, but that didn't stop us from
sending in our *pitbulls* to get them off their land.
kktaylor
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> In article <33545A...@micron.net>, kktaylor <kkta...@micron.net> wrote:
>
> > You're talking apples and oranges. My neighbor feeds beef cows in what
> >used to be his dairy. If his cows get out and start foraging in my hay,
> >he's responsible for any damage his cows do. We both live on irrigated
> >farmland and not on open range. The open range law makes perfectly good
> >business sense.
>
> If you lived in Grant County, Oregon, you would be subject to the
> open range law whether or not your farmland was irrigated.
>
> Do you still think it makes perfectly good business sense, or is your
> feeling on this matter influenced by the fact that it's not YOUR land
> which is suject to the law?
I find this hard to believe. If your cows get out of your dairy and
trample my wheat field, you're not lible in any way? You should check
your statute on this one.
>
> >When you buy real estate, It's up to you to understand
> >what you are getting into.
>
> Can I save this for the next Wise User who bitches about wetlands
> protection? Can I depend on your support of the position that
> when you buy real estate, you should understand that the government
> has a right to protect public assets which happen to be located
> on your land?
You damn well should understand that, but we're trying to straighten
that one out.
> >Can you see
> >how these rural laws are made so that reasonable people can settle
> >disputes by themselves?
>
> Yep, the rancher involved has a real reputation for being reasonable, having
> settled a dispute with his bro-in-law a couple of decades ago with
> eight gunshots, settling it forever.
Well, maybe you're right. I know the type. All the more reason not to
shoot his cows. But then again, if you had a brother-in-law like mine...
Kelly
R Walker
> > I am suggesting that folks who break the law are not due any
> > sympathy. If you can not be troubled to find out the legal
> > ramifications of your actions before you go shooting up the
> > countryside, then you deserve what you get. I have to obey
> > both the laws I agree with, and the ones that I don't; I think
> > I have a right to expect the same of other people as well.
>
> So why was Chad McKittrick given such a pity party when he was given six
> months for shooting that wolf from Yellowstone? You should read some of
> the stuff about how "...violated" his rights were. Absolutely
> nauseating, the lot of it.
No more nauseating than this pity party for the people who
are subject to "open range" laws. The whole mess is stupid.
As to shooting wolves, last time I checked, they hadn't recovered
to the point where their population can support hunting activities.
I just as soon folks wait until the population is healthy before
shooting one, and then only in accord with Wyoming, Montana, Oregon,
and Idaho's hunting regs.
Besides, if you accidently take an animal on the ES list, it is
not the end of the world, you just have to REPORT it, immediately,
and don't mess with any of the evidence. Folks get overly paranoid
about this stuff and hide evidence, fail to report the kill, etc,
all of which does just as much damage to a recovery effort as anything
else.
OTOH, maliciously killing a protected species seems like as good a
reason to dump someone in jail as anything else.
Obey the law as written, and change the laws you don't like. Yall
can work to eliminate "open range", and I can work to elmininate the
effect of the CWA on small, non-industrial landowners.
Don Baccus
In article <01bc4bc7$3e003f70$911d6dce@tendo_dojo>,
R Walker <r...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>No more nauseating than this pity party for the people who
>are subject to "open range" laws.
I'm sorry, what pity party are you talking about? I do believe I,
at least, have been clear that the Doc should be punished for what
he's done (though since we plea bargain with most crime-doers
these days I don't see why we shouldn't plea bargain with him,
as well).
And he himself hasn't asked for pity, he's stated his guilt and that
he was wrong.
However, the fact that he should stand up and take the heat for
his actions doesn't mean that he, nor I, nor anyone else should
abstain from pointing out that open range laws are STUPID and
UNJUST.
Despite the fact that I believe they are, if I hit a cow I'll pay
the rancher and I won't ask for your pity. I may rant that the
law's stupid, but that's not the same as asking for your pity.
Don Baccus
In article <335067...@micron.net>, kktaylor <kkta...@micron.net> wrote:
>Who says humans are required to preserve the land like it was 300 years ago? It
>is certainly not written in any natural law.
Who says we shouldn't? It is certainly not written in any natural law.
And who is asking to preserve all land west of the Rockies like it was 300 years
ago? Conservationists only ask that habitat be preserved sufficient to maintain
healthy populations of our biological heritage, rather than see species go extinct
or be restricted to a handful of individuals in very limited range.
This does not mean that all grazing must end.
However, there's nothing inherently better about a west populated solely
with cows and crested wheatgrass, rather than a west which has sage
grouse, prongies, salmon etc as well as cows.
And we're headed in the direction of a west without sage grouse, for instance.
They've nearly been extirpated from Washington and their range in Oregon is
something like 20-20% of what it was when I was a child (and I'm only 43).
Without change, the end result of this trend is obvious.
>> It is this blanket extrapolation that makes it tough for conservationists
>> to publicly declare that grazing is ever good on public lands. It gets
>> picked up, extrapolated to a sweeping generalization, and is used by
>> the cattle industry to justify grazing on all public lands, beneficial
>> or not.
> Are you saying that grazing is only approriate on land that has been
>historically used by grazing animals?
No. I used the word "good", i.e. cattlemen throughout the west claim
that flora and fauna always benefit from the presence of cows, though
this is demonstrably false in many of our desert ecosystems.
This doesn't mean that we should have no grazing on such lands. It only
means cattlemen should be honest that grazing comes with a cost, and
recognize that the public has a legitimate interest in the federal
lands we all own, and that includes the right to demand that grazing
be managed in a way that maintains healthy populations of our flora
and fauna on those lands.
And also that there are some lands that should never be grazed, period.
That includes big chunks of riparian zones alongside desert streams.
Just yesterday, the cattlemen's association was quoted in the Oregonian
claiming that this years upward bump in chinook (they have cycles,
like most populations, of course, and over the short term this can
confuse folks about the long-term trend) shows that grazing has no
effect on riparian zones, water temp, water pollution, salmon
populations.
This came a day after the feds declined to list coho stocks because
Oregon's come up with a plan based on voluntary measures to improve
stream conditions. This includes protection of grazed riparian
areas (though this isn't terribly significant for westside coho,
as opposed to the chinook mentioned above), which apparently is
not really needed according to the cattlemen. And the timber
industry has made it clear they don't think they need to change
harvest practices in riparian areas. I can tell right off that this
voluntary plan has a high chance for success.
Oh, the chinook...forgot to mention that instream conditions have
been improved as much of the John Day (the river in question) has
been fenced the past decade, allowing riparian areas to recover
(willow comes back fast). So, not only do the cattlemen claim
grazing did no damage, they refuse to acknowledge that removing
grazing from these riparian zones has anything to do with their
improving state.
In short, they're *bleeping* liars.
> Was this doctor a newcomer?
No, he's been here a long time.
>You can shoot your neighbors' dog if he won't stop harrasing your stock,
>but you just can't shoot your neighbors livestock.
Nor can you ask him to get his cows off your land. Well, you can ask,
but he can just laugh at you.
You've passed right over the issue of hypocrisy inherent in the view
that government must pay landowners "takings" money if private
landowners are required to protect public resources, but that it's
OK for a rancher's cow to eat my private resources and the rancher
has no obligation to pay me.
>A huge problem that
>has arisen with the western population shift is that alot of these new
>"ranchers" don't know how to be neighbors.(I'll bet the doctor built an
>airstrip and flies a bonanza)
He wasn't a "rancher". He's a doctor and had no intention of running
cows. He bought some land. According to Wise Use types, the fact
that he owns the land gives him sacred rights over that dominion - except,
of course, when a neighbor's sacred cow is involved. In this case, it
is the rancher's cow which has rights, not the landowner.
Hypocrisy.
When it's an elk on a rancher's land, the rancher wants to be paid for
ag damage. When it's a cow on my land, the rancher laughs at me.
>> Actually, they do. It is an interesting kind of caring, though.
> It's called humane treatment of animals.
What can be more humane than a bullet to the brainpan, which is how the
doctor dispatched them?
He's not charged with killing them inhumanely, just killing them.
> What's wrong with that. As citizens they are entitled to an opinion as
>to how the NPS manages its' charge.
There's nothing wrong with him expressing his opinion. There's nothing
wrong with pointing out that his opinion is stupid, either.
> Us western agribusiness people are learning to survive in a political
>system where we continue to be the largest businesses in our states yet
>our voting block slips further in the minority.
Ag certainly isn't the biggest industry in my state.
>Look at California.
>Farming is the largest industry by billions of dollars. Yet in terms of
>voting power, it is miniscule statewide. That's why you seldom see
>statewide elected officials from No. Calif. and those that are (Fein-
>stien for example) are urban millionaires.
Yeah, no political power. They've never had it. That's why they get
to graze at below-cost rates on BLM land, that the USFS ignored
sustained-yield and habitat protection laws for two decades, that the
US government built huge water projects in California that gave huge
benefits to a few, etc.
Don Baccus
In article <33506E...@micron.net>, kktaylor <kkta...@micron.net> wrote:
> You're probably right about everything you said. And I also know that
>you're sophisticated enough to know that's the way business does pol-
>itics. There's nothing sinister about it.
There's nothing uniquely sinister about it, at least. Just because slimy
propaganda techniques are shared by businesses other than the cattle business
doesn't make it right.
>They're tired of being portrayed as rapists.
They seek to preserve their power
>They believe that if you hold the NPS to the same standards they apply to
>themselves, who's the amateur?
This letter goes far beyond suggesting that NPS management is flawed to
some degree. This letter suggests that the Park be managed like a ranch.
This is quite different than suggesting that our knowledge about the
ecology of the Park suggests we should have fewer grazers within a
philisophical framework which maintains the Park in a state as close
to a natural ecosystem as we can manage.
The latter suggestion may have some merit, though as Brent and I have
pointed out there's no scientific consensus on the issue (on either
side, I should point out).
If it turns out management needs to be twiddled, we can do so without
rejecting the philosophy that the Park should function as much like
a natural ecosystem as we can manage.
Rather than like a ranch, which is what the letter writer seems to desire.
>> Additionally, many rural Westerners just want to make life difficult
>> for federal agencies (all of them) on principle. They resent the
>> federal presence, without which we conservationists could be run out
>> of the picture, so thoroughly and deeply that they'll not miss any
>> chance to paint them as incompetent. You can't sit down and have a
>> beer with the average rancher without getting an earful claiming
>> that the feds never do anything right, even in Frenchglen where
>> the conversation is punctuated by winnowing snipe and guttural
>> sandhill crane calls across the street on the Malheur NWR...
>You just have to be a businessman in a business that is heavily reg-
>ulated by government regulators who don't have a goddamn clue about
>how your business operates to understand.
See, as I said, they don't miss any chance to paint feds as incompetent...
>I have a friend who once had
>to educate an EPA person in the pesticide regulation division as to what
>a fungicide was. He knew that there were pesticides but he had no idea
>there were different types of pesticides.
That's OK, I once had to keep from laughing at a rancher who claimed that
nothing lives on the Alvord desert (which the ranch he manages mostly
owns) despite the fact that it hosts the largest population of (state
endangered) snowy plover in Oregon...
See, we can probably trade stories of incompetence from both sides
of the fence forever.
Sure, some federal employees are ignorant of some things or maybe even
downright incompetent.
So are some ranchers and cowboys.
So are folks in any company, any club, any newsgroup, whenever two
people meet one is less competent than the other in some respects.
So what? We should end the ban on DDT because your friend met an
incompetent EPA employee? Should we then ban ranching because I
met a rancher who doesn't even know what bird species inhabit his
land?
>
>
> Kelly
Don Baccus
> I find this hard to believe. If your cows get out of your dairy and
>trample my wheat field, you're not lible in any way? You should check
>your statute on this one.
Not if you're in an open range area. The entire county isn't necessarily
open range, of course, and I'm sure the county law was tailored to protect
rancher assests like defined fields and the like.
I'm simply stating that if, though, you were in an area subject to this
law that yes, the rancher is not liable in any way.
Are you beginning to understand the doctor's source of frustration?
It doesn't justify his shooting the cows, but does perhaps give some
insight as to why this man, intellegent, with no priors, lost it after
battling the cows for some years.
>> Can I save this for the next Wise User who bitches about wetlands
>> protection? Can I depend on your support of the position that
>> when you buy real estate, you should understand that the government
>> has a right to protect public assets which happen to be located
>> on your land?
> You damn well should understand that, but we're trying to straighten
>that one out.
Right, by ending the obligation of private landowners to protect public
resources (or more accurately, to give them unlimited rights to destroy
public resources, in other words to end the balance between public
and private rights to resources by skewing entirely towards private
rights, despite the intentions of the Founders and the wording of the
Constitution).
R Walker
> You've passed right over the issue of hypocrisy inherent in the view
> that government must pay landowners "takings" money if private
> landowners are required to protect public resources, but that it's
> OK for a rancher's cow to eat my private resources and the rancher
> has no obligation to pay me.
I can't believe this thread is still going on. You complain about
hypocrisy from the right about takings on this issue, but the
fact is simply that most folks on the right would go BALLISTIC
if they new that Joe Schmoe could graze his cattle on your
land without your permission and without compensating you.
I frankly did not know until I read it here. If I was a lefty
this wouldn't bother me all that much, as its just one more
instance of government controlling your private property
to achieve a government objective without compensating the
land owner. On the other hand, it is a *state* law, so
that is an issue that folks in your state need to fix, and
not something that a right winger from Texas should get all
that aggravated about.
*MOST* private property rights activists would be appalled
at the idea of someone elses cows being allowed to graze
your land without first arranging an appropriate lease.
> > It's called humane treatment of animals.
>
> What can be more humane than a bullet to the brainpan, which is how the
> doctor dispatched them?
Certainly it is humane, however, it was a crime under the states
laws. Breaking the law is *NEVER* right. Whether its the Endangered
Species Act or some goofy open range provision of your states law.
You work to change the laws that are bad, you don't get the right
to break the law without accepting the punishment.
> [re: ag bus]
> Yeah, no political power. They've never had it. That's why they get
> to graze at below-cost rates on BLM land, that the USFS ignored
You can not claim the rates are below-cost. Nor does anyone know
what the *REAL* market value of those lands is. Because BLM is
a *government* agency that costs whatever the congress writes into
the applicable appropriation bills, whether its $1 or $1 trillion
dollars; its cost is not the result of valid expenses but rather
politically chosen pay outs to various individuals and groups
of individuals. (employees, activists, corporations, etc.)
When range reform happens, and all these lands are put out FOR
BID, for full control leases of X years in duration; then
we'll know what the market value is. And if the BLM was ever
turned into a private corporation, with a CFO/CEO who can say,
"No, Mr. CongressCritter, no Mrs. President, we are *not* going
to buy xyz, nor pdq, and we are definately not going to allow
abc corporation to bid on nor do the work."; THEN and only then
will you know what BLM costs.
I think you need to be more careful about who you label a
"*bleaping* liar". For all we know right now ranchers are
paying 10 times the market rate and 3 times the actual cost.
Not that I think that is true, but hunches are worth less
than day old coffee.
Don Baccus
In article <01bc5663$e8321a80$911d6dce@tendo_dojo>,
R Walker <r...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>I can't believe this thread is still going on. You complain about
>hypocrisy from the right about takings on this issue, but the
>fact is simply that most folks on the right would go BALLISTIC
>if they new that Joe Schmoe could graze his cattle on your
>land without your permission and without compensating you.
Hmmm, those on the right who consider themselves have certainly
not gone BALLISTIC over this fact. Indeed, they defend the
practice.
> If I was a lefty
>this wouldn't bother me all that much, as its just one more
>instance of government controlling your private property
>to achieve a government objective without compensating the
>land owner.
Cough cough. Ahem, conservation is only recently a partisan
issue, and it is only very recently that conservatives decided
to take the position that the government can only protect
public resources by paying private landowners not to destroy
them.
The modern conservation movement was begun by Republicans,
for Christ's sake, who decided it was time for the federal
government to protect an important public resource - wildlife,
in particular those non-game species unprotected at the state
level.
Why do property rights advocates always speak of "achieving
government objectives without compensating the land
owner"? Is that because they're afraid to point out that
they wish landowners to be paid not to harm public
resources like wildlife or water? Title to land does
not include title to all resources on that land - ever
read a mineral rights agreement?
>On the other hand, it is a *state* law,
It's a county ordinance, but one which is mirrored in many
counties in ranching states throughout the West (though,
apparently, not Texas, which is really the South anyway. Well,
judging from recent actions by separatists, maybe just WEIRD).
>Certainly it is humane, however, it was a crime under the states
>laws. Breaking the law is *NEVER* right.
Didn't say it was, just pointed out he wasn't being charged with
treating the cow inhumanely.
However, I personally do believe that breaking the law as a
display of civil disobedience is at times warranted. One must,
however, be willing to pay the consequences.
So, for instance, the eastern Oregon rancher who about two years
ago drove his tractor over a fence built by the USF&W (on a National
Wildlife Refuge) to keep his cows out of a pond during nesting
season (remember, it is the refuge's responsibility, not the
rancher's, to keep the cows off) and then right into the pond
where he overturned it and drained the oil and gas into the
pond as a statement against the USF&W should've been willing
to pay the consequences. Instead, 500 folks from Burns (that's
like 25% of the adult population) marched in the streets demanding
that all charges be dropped, and USF&W folk got death threats
for having arrested him.
Now, we must at least give our good doctor applause for having
the guts to stand up and say "I killed the cows, I was wrong, I'll
pay the price after I get my day in court". And to be honest
enough not to try and claim it was any attempt at civil
disobedience to protest the open range law, but rather an act
of anger against the rancher's property.
>Whether its the Endangered Species Act or some goofy open range provision
>of your states law. You work to change the laws that are bad
Of course, the ESA isn't a bad law, though it certainly should
be strengthened.
>you don't get the right
>to break the law without accepting the punishment.
That's correct, and indeed underlies the principle of civil disobedience.
After all, Thoreau wrote about it sitting in jail...
>You can not claim the rates are below-cost. Nor does anyone know
>what the *REAL* market value of those lands is.
In my state, I'd claim the *REAL* market value is the same as
the state lands which often lie abutting federal allotments,
which go for about 4 times the price of federal AUMs. The
state provides similar services.
The BLM loses money on its range program. When something is
offered at less than the price it costs to do so, it is
"below-cost".
>Because BLM is
>a *government* agency that costs whatever the congress writes into
>the applicable appropriation bills, whether its $1 or $1 trillion
>dollars; its cost is not the result of valid expenses but rather
>politically chosen pay outs to various individuals and groups
>of individuals. (employees, activists, corporations, etc.)
Horseshit. It costs money to administer a range leasing program,
it is not simply a fanatsy of Congress.
>When range reform happens, and all these lands are put out FOR
>BID, for full control leases of X years in duration; then
>we'll know what the market value is.
What's wrong with comparing them to equivalent state land?
>And if the BLM was ever
>turned into a private corporation, with a CFO/CEO who can say,
>"No, Mr. CongressCritter, no Mrs. President, we are *not* going
>to buy xyz, nor pdq, and we are definately not going to allow
>abc corporation to bid on nor do the work."; THEN and only then
>will you know what BLM costs.
You don't really know much about how the BLM operates, do you?
>I think you need to be more careful about who you label a
>"*bleaping* liar". For all we know right now ranchers are
>paying 10 times the market rate and 3 times the actual cost.
>Not that I think that is true, but hunches are worth less
>than day old coffee.
Hunches? The federal range leasing program has been studied
by organizations as varied as national environmental groups
and the very conservative Cato Institute. They all make
the same conclusion, and they've done so by doing comparing
the price of a federal AUM with state and private rates,
including compensating for differing levels of service.
You may want to study, say, the Cato Institute's analysis of the
issue (I imagine it's inline) and point out any mistakes they've
made.
However, don't make a public fool of yourself by claiming the
Cato Institute's analysis is just a "hunch".
Larry Wolfe
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> It's a county ordinance, but one which is mirrored in many
> counties in ranching states throughout the West (though,
> apparently, not Texas, which is really the South anyway. Well,
> judging from recent actions by separatists, maybe just WEIRD).
Ahem. Now Don, we are just concerned that all those oddballs,
misfits, and folks who are a few bricks shy of a load in Utah,
Idaho and Montana are getting all the publicity. Be it known that
our great state produces as many high quality nuts as any state
in the union...
--larry
Texas.
R Walker
Don Baccus <dho...@pacifier.com> wrote in article <5katcm$o05$1...@news.pacifier.com>...
>
> In article <01bc5663$e8321a80$911d6dce@tendo_dojo>,
> R Walker <r...@neosoft.com> wrote:
>
> Hmmm, those on the right who consider themselves have certainly
> not gone BALLISTIC over this fact. Indeed, they defend the
> practice.
I wish I could respond to this, but its missing something in the
first sentence and I'm not sure what you are wanting to say.
I can't think of any right winger I know in Texas that would
tolerate someone being allowed to graze their cattle on someone
elses property without the land owners permission.
> Cough cough. Ahem, conservation is only recently a partisan
> issue, and it is only very recently that conservatives decided
> to take the position that the government can only protect
> public resources by paying private landowners not to destroy
> them.
I say pay property holders to ENHANCE these resources. The
preservation will simply follow as a subset. Or if you don't
like "paying" people, lets terminate *ALL* direct payments.
If we can pay people to sit at home, we can pay property
owners for their inconvenience.
> The modern conservation movement was begun by Republicans,
> for Christ's sake, who decided it was time for the federal
> government to protect an important public resource - wildlife,
Yawn. Parties drift. I'm not attached to a particular
political party. I vote on issues, not name id, and not
party affiliation.
> Why do property rights advocates always speak of "achieving
> government objectives without compensating the land
> owner"? Is that because they're afraid to point out that
> they wish landowners to be paid not to harm public
> resources like wildlife or water? Title to land does
> not include title to all resources on that land - ever
> read a mineral rights agreement?
Why? Thats actually a decent question. Its simple, though
I understand your point of view as well. Property rights
folks feel that if the public has an interest in the
preservation of XYZ, then the public can pay the cost of
XYZ. I don't really care about the big land owners; what
disturbs me are the periodic instances where the feds make
it their business to come down hard on some lower class
slob with a $10,000 house and $30,000-$50,000 worth of land
and hardly a pair of nickles to rub together. It seems
to me that the feds ought to go out of their way to
help folks like these comply; but more often, it seems
they simply wait for them to screw up enough, and then
simply take the property away, basically forwarding it
on to some big developer who can afford the lawyers
required to deal with the EPA, etc; and who has the
factors of scale to make the cost of dealing with the
EPA per acre quite trivial. Maybe such holdings don't
exist much in your neck of the woods, but they are the
rule down here. The big ranches that make news are the
exception.
Anyhow, thats my motivation, and if I have to be cozy with
larger industrial and development concerns that I don't
particularly like, then that is just the way it has to
be.
> It's a county ordinance, but one which is mirrored in many
> counties in ranching states throughout the West (though,
> apparently, not Texas, which is really the South anyway. Well,
> judging from recent actions by separatists, maybe just WEIRD).
Seven 30-day crazies, holed up in a $30 shack sitting on $200
worth of west texas land does not a separatist movement make.
Texas is an interesting state in that it was actually a real,
live, independent nation before joining the United States.
> Didn't say it was, just pointed out he wasn't being charged with
> treating the cow inhumanely.
I didn't know cows were smart enough to know what inhumane was.
Not that folks shouldn't take care of their cattle, but still,
the notion that shooting a cow is cruel, is pretty silly if you
ask me. Shooting a cow and letting it rot is wasteful, but thats
a different story.
> However, I personally do believe that breaking the law as a
> display of civil disobedience is at times warranted. One must,
> however, be willing to pay the consequences.
I just think its plain stupid and immature.
> to pay the consequences. Instead, 500 folks from Burns (that's
> like 25% of the adult population) marched in the streets demanding
> that all charges be dropped, and USF&W folk got death threats
> for having arrested him.
Well, hey, don't look at me. Folks justified the LA riots in the
same way, "I don't like the result our legal system came too."
The rioters were thugs who deserve nothing but a cold prison cell,
and folks who make death threats against other people regardless
of reason deserve exactly the same thing.
Now marching peacefully to get those laws CHANGED is a completely
different thing, and should be encouraged by everyone whether
you agree or disagree.
> Now, we must at least give our good doctor applause for having
> the guts to stand up and say "I killed the cows, I was wrong, I'll
> pay the price after I get my day in court". And to be honest
> enough not to try and claim it was any attempt at civil
> disobedience to protest the open range law, but rather an act
> of anger against the rancher's property.
I certainly respect the doc for his attitude, but it doesn't
deserve one dribble of sympathy.
> Of course, the ESA isn't a bad law, though it certainly should
> be strengthened.
Parts need strengthening, parts need fixing. Things that cause
people to destroy habitat in order to avoid actual effects of the
law, if not technical effects. Things that make people same "damn,
there is an endangered species on my property." need to be changed
so that those same people say, "freaking awesome! there is an
endangered species on my property, what shall I do to improve
the quality of their habitat."
As a simplistic example, Texas has a program where if the land
owner agrees to join a management group and improve available
habitat, they get additional dear tags for their property, mostly
in an area that used to have a lot of poaching and the populations
are thinner than in the rest of the state.
Heck, terminate HUD and all its associated programs, and use the
money to enhance habitat, smooth out and increase roadless wilderness,
swap land that is essentially commercial for inholdings, and measure
the value of the inholding in terms of its importance to the
environment. There are all kinds of wilderness areas that look
like sea-anemones because of roads that could benefit from a
land owner positive attitude.
> In my state, I'd claim the *REAL* market value is the same as
> the state lands which often lie abutting federal allotments,
> which go for about 4 times the price of federal AUMs. The
> state provides similar services.
>
> The BLM loses money on its range program. When something is
> offered at less than the price it costs to do so, it is
> "below-cost".
Certainly true, however, we do not know, and can not know what
it costs to do the job BLM does. Right now, BLM is no different
than the Social Security agency or AFDC program handing out cash
to selected persons and groups of persons. It is not a business
and does not have a market relavent cost associated with operations
that is worth even arguing about.
>
> >Because BLM is
> >a *government* agency that costs whatever the congress writes into
> >the applicable appropriation bills, whether its $1 or $1 trillion
> >dollars; its cost is not the result of valid expenses but rather
> >politically chosen pay outs to various individuals and groups
> >of individuals. (employees, activists, corporations, etc.)
>
> Horseshit. It costs money to administer a range leasing program,
> it is not simply a fanatsy of Congress.
Profanity does not enhance your argument. "Range leasing program"
could cost $500,000, or it could cost $50 million, depends on what
the appropriations bills put into effect, and what kind of conditions
are on the leases.
> >When range reform happens, and all these lands are put out FOR
> >BID, for full control leases of X years in duration; then
> >we'll know what the market value is.
>
> What's wrong with comparing them to equivalent state land?
Supply and Demand. Thats what is wrong. If you have a 100 of
something, that gets $5 per item in the market, then come back
and offer 200 or 400 of that same thing, it will *NOT* be worth
$5.00. Depending on its potential for revenue generation and the
ability of the current assets to utilize the encreased supply,
you might drop only a little in price, but that is all untested,
and while you can make some guesses about the end result, they
will remain just that, wild guesses.
> >And if the BLM was ever
> >turned into a private corporation, with a CFO/CEO who can say,
> >"No, Mr. CongressCritter, no Mrs. President, we are *not* going
> >to buy xyz, nor pdq, and we are definately not going to allow
> >abc corporation to bid on nor do the work."; THEN and only then
> >will you know what BLM costs.
>
> You don't really know much about how the BLM operates, do you?
Don't need to. Organizations that control their expenses are
responsible for their expenses. I do not hold HUD responsible
for what they cost, I hold the people who wrote the laws and
regs, and passed the appropriations bills, responsible. HUD
could cost $1 million next year, or it could cost $24 billion.
Its entirely up to the folks who put the appropriations bills
into law. Same with BLM.
Only when BLM controls both their revenue stream and their
expenses will we know what anything "costs" in market relavent
terms.
> You may want to study, say, the Cato Institute's analysis of the
> issue (I imagine it's inline) and point out any mistakes they've
> made.
>
> However, don't make a public fool of yourself by claiming the
> Cato Institute's analysis is just a "hunch".
1. You have an over-rated sense of what makes someone into a
fool. I am not a fool, I simply disagree with your analysis
and conclusions.
2. You point to studies. The whole point of what I wrote is
that I do *not* trust studies; not the ones done by folks
who share my policy preferences, and not the ones who oppose
my policy preferences. I trust results. CATO I do usually
agree with, though not on defense issues.
R Walker
> Ahem. Now Don, we are just concerned that all those oddballs,
> misfits, and folks who are a few bricks shy of a load in Utah,
> Idaho and Montana are getting all the publicity. Be it known that
> our great state produces as many high quality nuts as any state
> in the union...
Well, at least the nuts can't get away with grazing their cows on
my land without my permission!!
Brent L. Brock
Don Baccus <dho...@pacifier.com> wrote in article
<5katcm$o05$1...@news.pacifier.com>...
> In article <01bc5663$e8321a80$911d6dce@tendo_dojo>,
[snip]
>
> Cough cough. Ahem, conservation is only recently a partisan
> issue, and it is only very recently that conservatives decided
> to take the position that the government can only protect
> public resources by paying private landowners not to destroy
> them.
>
> The modern conservation movement was begun by Republicans,
> for Christ's sake, who decided it was time for the federal
> government to protect an important public resource - wildlife,
> in particular those non-game species unprotected at the state
> level.
>
> Why do property rights advocates always speak of "achieving
> government objectives without compensating the land
> owner"? Is that because they're afraid to point out that
> they wish landowners to be paid not to harm public
> resources like wildlife or water? Title to land does
> not include title to all resources on that land - ever
> read a mineral rights agreement?
I certainly agree that holding title to a piece of property does not give a
person the right to trash all of the resources upon it. However, I do
think it's important to provide incentives for private landowners to
participate in conservation. I think it's generally agreed that the
current system of Federal restrictions (largely wetlands and endangered
species protection) has resulted in disincentives for private landowners to
participate in conservation efforts. I'm not saying that these Federal
restrictions aren't necessary, or that private landowners fears are well
founded, or even that incentive programs don't exist. The fact remains,
though, that the public perception is that if the Feds find wetlands or
endangered species on your land, you will be restricted in what you can or
can't do with that land. As a result, many landowners try to prevent
conservation professionals from discovering what might exist on their
property. Worse yet, some landowners have purposely destroyed potential
endangered species habitat to make sure that they won't have to hassle with
the ESA. Clearly a different approach is needed so that a landowner can
proudly declare that they preserve habitat for Kirtland's warblers or
Meade's milkweeds. Perhaps a good first step would be to compensate
landowners for restrictions placed on their property to conserve natural
resources. We also need to find ways to expose landowners to the economic
potential of conservation. I'm convinced that there is much money to be
made from hosting endangered species on private property. I'm not a fan of
free market environmentalism but their are some conservation problems that
can be solved with capitalism and this may be one of them. The bottom line
is that we need to develop overall conservation policies that leave the
necessary restrictions in place to safe-guard the public interest in
natural resources but these restrictions need to be balanced with policies
that don't make the landowners feel like they are getting screwed in the
name of conservation.
[rest snipped]
--
----------------------------------------------------
Brent L. Brock
Kansas State University
Dept. Agronomy, Range Science
blb...@ksu.edu
----------------------------------------------------
Jeff Wilson
Brent,
I don't agree with your philosophy of paying people to take care of
their own land. Extending your analogy to its logical conclusions
means we give low cost federal land to big corporations though the
1800's mining laws and then pay them not to destroy the land.
The vast majority of individual landowners and businesses have a
terrible track record of raping the land for maximized short term
profits. Without goverment controls they will continue to do so.
Payaing them not to rape the land is extortion. Should we also pay
muggers and robbers not to ply their trade?
Jeff
|Jeff Wilson jrwi...@gv.net
|
|...... Seek harmony and balance in the mountains, find harmony and balance within.....
Brent L. Brock
Jeff Wilson <jrwi...@gv.net> wrote in article <5kvlc8$1...@news.gv.net>...
> Brent,
>
> I don't agree with your philosophy of paying people to take care of
> their own land. Extending your analogy to its logical conclusions
> means we give low cost federal land to big corporations though the
> 1800's mining laws and then pay them not to destroy the land.
>
> The vast majority of individual landowners and businesses have a
> terrible track record of raping the land for maximized short term
> profits. Without goverment controls they will continue to do so.
> Payaing them not to rape the land is extortion. Should we also pay
> muggers and robbers not to ply their trade?
>
> Jeff
Jeff,
I respect your opinion and am not unsympathetic. Like I said in my post, I
didn't want to get into the philosophical issue of whether paying
landowners for not destroying habitat is extortion or not. I'm a
pragmatist and I want to find conservation policies that work regardless of
philosophical implications. I strongly agree with you that government
controls are necessary to safe-guard natural resources. My biggest
complaint against free-market environmentalism is that it allows landowners
to sell out natural resources for short-term profits. However, my concern
is that if our conservation policies focus too strongly on restrictive
legislation, then landowners will attempt to find ways to circumvent the
restrictions. I believe this is the situation that is developing now and
this is a view that I've seen echoed on the pages of The Wildlife Society
newsletter. What is needed are more incentives to conserve natural
resources, compensation is but one of many possibilities available. You
can call it bribery or extortion but if it results in more high quality
wildlife habitat being preserved, then I am all for it. What I would
really like to see is better application of free-market principles to make
conservation an economically viable alternative. Such an approach has
already proven effective in maintain game populations. Many cattle ranches
in Texas now make more annual profit off of hunting leases than from their
cattle operations. As a result, management efforts have shifting to
reflect this new emphasis on providing high quality hunting opportunities.
This concept should be expanded. If a guy is willing to maintain enough
prairie dogs to support black-footed ferrets, then I think the guy deserves
to set up an observation blind and charge people $20 for the privilege of
seeing one of our rare treasures on his property. Once the first guy
becomes a millionaire from hosting black-footed ferrets, you can bet that
others will come along to get a piece of the action.
So there you have it. I'm not advocating that we dismantle our
environmental protection laws. We need the ESA , the Clean Water Act, and
the host of other laws that safe-guard our ecosystems. However, we also
need landowners to WANT to participate in conservation rather than feeling
like they are being forced by "Big Brother". If we could accomplish that,
then we would enjoy unimaginable success in our conservation efforts. I
don't really give a crap whether the landowners deserve any incentives or
not. If such incentives result in the removal of species from the
threatened and endangered list, a reversal in songbird population declines,
or the restoration of bats to their natural role as insect annihilators,
then it would be well worth it.
--
-----------------------------------------
Brent L. Brock
Kansas State University
Dept. of Agronomy, Range Science
blb...@ksu.edu
------------------------------------------
Scott C. Pettengill
Brent,
Excellent response. I support you 100%. Until holistic land management
is the rule rather than the exception then economic incentives are a
good way to preserve habitat.
Scott C. Pettengill
Brent L. Brock
----------
> From: WOLFBAT359 <wolfb...@aol.com>
> To: Brent L. Brock <blb...@ksu.edu>
> Subject: Re: From the Western Livestock Journal
> Date: Sunday, May 11, 1997 5:52 AM
>
> Brent again has said some things I find very unfortunate:
>
[much garbage deleted]
>
> No Brent I read all the Ag magazines. they hate they are ah hattin of
> prairie dogs - has nothin to do with BFFs.
Put down the damn magazines and go talk to some ranchers. Ask them what
they think about the possibility of having ferrets on their land.
> You said above on easements
> that people would have a right to go and see the wildlife, now you say
the
> rancher shoulde get the right to fleece the public to see a black footed
> ferret.
If a landowner is going to accept public money as an incentive for
conservation, then we have a right to expect free public access to the
resources as part of that agreement. If a landowner enhances wildlife
habitat from their own resources, then they should have a right to realize
a LEGAL profit from their actions. Notice that I'm not saying a landowner
that provides habitat for black-footed ferrets should be able to sell
ferret pelts but any money making activity that is compatible with
conservation laws should be fair game.
Another thing that bothers me about your attitude is an apparent
selfishness that ALL wildlife be made accessible to the public. My concern
is with maintaining healthy ecosystems. I would much rather have all
black-footed ferrets living on private lands and off limits to the public
than to only know them from the pages of an encyclopedia with the word
EXTINCT under their picture. According to you, anyone who realizes
economic profit from wildlife is "fleecing the public". Do you honestly
think that if our forefathers had been able to make more money off of
maintaining wild bison than domestic cattle, we would so many cattle
ranches today?
> And people a lot of this control of prairie dogs goes on on
> public land - our lands. So a rancher who got that lease in the first
> place do to political power - we are going to have to pay big to preserve
> wildlife on public property.
Please show me in any of my previous posts where I said ANYTHING about
public lands. I have been talking about providing incentives for
landowners to enhance natural resources on private property.
> Look in the "Western Livestock Journal"
> some time. They have Ranches and Farms for sale. Are they deprived
areas
> with run down buildings?? Some of the ones I see in the "WLJ" have
> million dollar health workput centers with massive hot tubs and such.
Yea
> they really need money to make it. Paying tribute is paying tribute!!!
>
Why are you trying to equate my views with what you read in the "Western
Livestock Journal"? And what does a person's wealth have to do with what
motivates them to preserve wildlife?
>
>
> <<<<<No. How about this? One of the Dakotas (can't remember which)
> offers a
> cost share with ranchers installing stock ponds. The catch? The pond
has
> to meet the specifications of a new hybrid design that creates shallow
> wetlands habitat in 1/2 of the pond. That's a one time cost share that
> will provide decades of wetlands habitat in a region that has lost much
of
> it.>>>>>>
>
> I see and a wolf can come to drink there or a coyote. I think not! I
> know too many Ranchers!
Good God! Apparently there is no pleasing you. I provide a perfect
example of how a modest outlay of tax dollars can provide benefits for
public wildlife interests and ranchers both, and you want more. Apparently
you have some master plan to fix all wildlife problems simultaneously. I'd
love to here it.
You will be happy to know that coyotes are WELCOMED by most ranchers in my
area. If a coyote attacks calves, it will be shot. The rest are
considered welcome allies. Coyote hunters beware though.
> Has nothin to do with money - just ingrained
> hatred and a feeling that they can and will control the west! Heck just
> look at the Kansas delegations voting record!
Look at the voting record of the Kansas delegation prior to this current
mob of goons. I've got news for you but part of the reason Kansas voters
swung toward the right was because they believe the rhetoric about overly
restrictive environmental regulation. I don't agree with them but the fact
that enough voters believe it to affect election outcomes indicates a need
for some policy changes.
>
>
>
> <<<<<<< . If, OTOH, the guy buys his property AFTER the murrelets are
> listed, then tough shit, he should have been more careful about his
> purchase.>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Don't mean nothin. Those people know how to change local and national
> legislation. To me it is a taking no matter when it happens. Zoing
> regulations are takings. It should apply to everybody. Brents
suggestion
> that because some rancher's daddy dropped an Indian family in some stream
> and claimed the land and the stream for himself and now should be exempt
> from environmental regulations - don't make it with me. Either it
applies
> to all - or don't apply it.
None of this paragraph makes any sense to me. All I'm saying is that when
you purchase property, it's use is restricted by applicable laws and you
are obligated to honor those laws. If the laws change WHILE you are the
property owner, then you should be entitled to compensation for loss.
That's the way eminent domain has always worked and it's written into the
Constitution.
> I do believe they are weaking the Engangered
> Species Laws. so it won't matter anyway. And the Republicsn will demand
> compensation for everybody anyway.
What weakens a law is when it loses public support. Prohibition and the
National speed limit come to mind. If the public decides the ESA causes
more hardship to private landowners than it is worth, then it will
disappear. I don't want that to happen and with a little tweaking I think
it could be prevented.
> So you see a bird in your yard shoot
> it and bring it down to city hall and Demand BIG BUCKS not to shoot the
> next one!
NO! Anyone who illegal shoots an animal should be fined, put in jail, or
both. Have you understood anything I've written so far?
>
> <<<<Here's an example of what the current system can cause, and this
> happened
> practically in my backyard. A few years ago the Kansas Biological Survey
> identified a sizable tract of wet tallgrass prairie. I don't remember
the
> details but they knew that the Federally endangered Meade's milkweed at
> one
> time lived on the property and believed this was one of the last
> populations of the plant in the state. It didn't matter because as soon
> as
> the guy found out he might have an endangered species on his place, he
> freaked and plowed the entire prairie in the middle of the night. This
> kind of thing sickens me. Why was such a valuable natural resource lost,
> and why have we constructed such an atmosphere of paranoia?>>>>
>
> Well the ESA was designed becuase people were clear-cutting and plowing
> all wildlife under - not becuase they were protecting them. So under
> Brents logic we end all ESA regulations and the Endangered species make a
> rapid recovery as all farmers are now not paranoid - It defies logic.
> Stop alllaws against murder and murders will stop - I think NOT! Pay the
> Framer BIG BUCKS to save one Wildbird - no. Without a comprehensive plan
> for the survival of a species - paying isolated framer Big BUCnot to plow
> his field, well until Pombo gets wind of it and reverses the law, to me
> is no fix but a scam!
Now I have my answer, you have NOT understood a word I have written. I
specifically stated that the ESA and other environmental restrictions
should remain intact. Protective regulations are vital to safe-guarding
our natural resources but their effectiveness could be greatly enhanced by
providing conservation incentives.
>
> >>>>>> My goal is to
> help reverse this. I want landowners to be able to say, "I have an
> endangered species on my property? That's great. How can I get more?".
> I've given you my view of possible solutions, now let's here yours.>>>>
>
> Well I know some people who had to pay the mob the right to do business
in
> Chicago in the twenties and thirties, so under the new morality you will
> have to pay farmers BIG BUCKS for one Bird's nest not plowed under
>
No, we will help the farmers find new markets for natural ecosystems. Can
you say ecotourism?
>
>
> <<<<Well, if we don't find better ways to make landowners willing
partners
> in
> conservation, we'd better get used to watching the threatened,
endangered,
> and extinct lists grow.>>>>>>>
>
> That right people. And under Brent's moral principles, all you now
figure
> out how much money you have lost by not growing pot on your land and
> charge the government. Be like Susan Smith. Tell the government you
want
> BIG BUCK to raise your children or you will put them in a car and push
> them into the lake. A good coming Orwellian world!!!
Oh yeah, I'm evil and morally bankrupt because I'd rather find ways to
conserve ecosystems that work rather than just bitch about what assholes
all of the land rapers are. I just don't see what would be wrong with a
guy restoring 160 acres of farmland back to nature so that he can charge
campers $5 a tent for the privilege of enjoying the area. The government
runs this type of "scam" all the time. For more money, the landowner could
provide a personal guide service to show clients things like hummingbird
nests and bat roosts. But wait, if that bastard makes too much money doing
that, he might convert his entire farm to a nature preserve - filthy rich
bastard.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent L. Brock
Kansas State University
Dept. of Agronomy, Range Science
blb...@ksu.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baccus
In article <01bc5e1c$6cab6b80$Loca...@sage.jc.net>,
Brent L. Brock <blb...@ksu.edu> wrote:
>Another thing that bothers me about your attitude is an apparent
>selfishness that ALL wildlife be made accessible to the public.
If we did this, we'd have to open up all National Wildlife Refuges
that typically are closed up seasonally, which would be a big mistake.
>Look at the voting record of the Kansas delegation prior to this current
>mob of goons. I've got news for you but part of the reason Kansas voters
>swung toward the right was because they believe the rhetoric about overly
>restrictive environmental regulation. I don't agree with them but the fact
>that enough voters believe it to affect election outcomes indicates a need
>for some policy changes.
This is where you and I part ground. I think we need more effective
politicking, not a change in policy. We see these pendulum swings
in politics, there's no helping it - and changing policy won't
stop these swings.
You'll note, too, that the Republicans have been forced to get damned
sneaky in order to weaken laws. I'm beginning to hate disasters, the
Oklahoma bombing led to the Salvage Rider, this year's floods to the
(limited) weakening of the ESA based on a pack of lies by Pombo and
this state control over right-of-way fiasco by Ted Stevens of Alaska.
Unfortunately, I and many other conservationists (and you, I suspect,
Brent) can't bring ourselves to lie about "the other side" though the
other side has no problem lying about the ESA and other law. We're
stuck with the truth - which is often an ugly truth, of course.
Anyway, the right has succeeded to a small degree in swaying public
opinion against certain regulatory laws, i.e. the ESA and wetlands
protection. However, it is obvious that these laws still are supported
by a large majority of voters, as the Republicans found out after
Newtie et al swept to power.
Note that after this happened, they lied about facts regarding the
ESA and stuff like wetlands protection, and were honest about their
efforts to gut such laws.
After a severe public reaction, they've now been forced to go back
to their old tricks of lying both about the existing laws, and about
the changes they propose to make, which they now claim will strengthen
protection (at least, this is the most common lie). For instance,
digging out probably the last handful of academics who believe in "old
forestry" in order to give scant credibility to the claim that the
Clinton Forest Plan, crafted by a couple of hundred scientists who
do active research in PNW forests, is "bad science". Then claiming
that salvage logging is only being proposed because "good science"
supports it.
The Wise Use folks have grabbed the propaganda machine and crank it
up, but that doesn't mean we should cave in. If a new approach is
adopted, paying for "takings" or whatever, they'll just fight that.
Their goal is to end ALL regulatory control over conservation, no matter
what form it takes and no matter how fairly private landowners are
treated.
Until the public understands that, we're in deep shit.
Sometimes, Brent, I think you're a bit naive in regard to conservation
politics, at least as they're conducted out here...you actually seem
to buy the argument that those proposing changes are just seeking
ways to more fairly achieve conservation goals, rather than the reality
that they're wreckers.
>None of this paragraph makes any sense to me. All I'm saying is that when
>you purchase property, it's use is restricted by applicable laws and you
>are obligated to honor those laws. If the laws change WHILE you are the
>property owner, then you should be entitled to compensation for loss.
>That's the way eminent domain has always worked and it's written into the
>Constitution.
Well, such changes happen all the time when zoning laws change, and
each time there are winners and losers, and the losers aren't typically
reimbursed for decreased value nor do winners pay for increased value.
This whole "takings" thing first hit the courts early this century, and
it was over urban zoning, not rural zoning (which is what wetlands
regs and the like boil down to).
Government's limited right to overrule private property rights in
order to promote the public good is also written in the Constitution,
and the court cases involving zoning draw guidelines which set the
legal boundaries for when such changes in law do constitute "takings".
The decisions essentially say "yes, they can contitute a 'takings'
but don't always constitute a 'takings'".
The whole "takings" movement we see today want to overthrow that
body of Constitional law. Ironically, though, not for urban zoning
but only for narrowly-defined, environmental regulations which is
why opponents like me keep ranting that fair treatment of landowners
has nothing to do with why such changes are being pushed. The idea
is to require reimbursement - then refuse funding. In this way,
such regulations can be quietly ended (in effect) without directly
repealing them - which would be political suicide. It's simply a
politically safe way of ending these regulations.
I have no doubt that you, yourself, truly are seeking fair treatment
of private landowners but by supporting such legislation you are doing
two things:
1. Causing those subject to rural zoning laws to be treated differently
under the law than those subject to urban zoning laws, which as an
urban dweller I object to because it is unfair to me.
2. Being an accidental "fellow traveller" with those who seek to use this
to end environmental regulation of private lands. They welcome the
support of the well-meaning now, and then when appropriations that
actually pay for "takings" come up they'll quietly ignore the public
and do what they want. Since the machinations behind the appropriations
process is so complex and archane, not even experts can easily follow
it and it's much easier to do sneaky destruction this way, than through
up-front repeal.
I think the Courts have done a pretty reasonable job with "takings" cases.
Many private landowners have lost, some have won, and the line seems
pretty fairly drawn to me.
>What weakens a law is when it loses public support. Prohibition and the
>National speed limit come to mind. If the public decides the ESA causes
>more hardship to private landowners than it is worth, then it will
>disappear. I don't want that to happen and with a little tweaking I think
>it could be prevented.
The ESA enjoys something like 70% approval in this country, and it isn't
just polls by conservationists that show this. The Republicans understand
this better than you, apparently, because they are working hard to attack
bits of it quietly (like the current Pombo rider to the flood-disaster
legislation) through lies, and by end-arounds like "takings" legislation.
They're aware that a national referendum on this issue would lead to
a tremendous victory for ESA, which continues to be one of the most
popular pieces of legislation passed in this country since that which
repealed prohibition.
The ESA could be improved, of course, and also very few seem to understand
that the ESA has in effect been greatly weakened through the appropriations
process. Very little money has been passed to work on proposed listings,
then the backlog is trotted out as evidence the Act is a failure.
>> <<<<Here's an example of what the current system can cause, and this
>> happened
>> practically in my backyard. A few years ago the Kansas Biological Survey
>> identified a sizable tract of wet tallgrass prairie. I don't remember
>the
>> details but they knew that the Federally endangered Meade's milkweed at
>> one
>> time lived on the property and believed this was one of the last
>> populations of the plant in the state. It didn't matter because as soon
>> as
>> the guy found out he might have an endangered species on his place, he
>> freaked and plowed the entire prairie in the middle of the night. This
>> kind of thing sickens me. Why was such a valuable natural resource lost,
>> and why have we constructed such an atmosphere of paranoia?>>>>
These kinds of thing are going to happen no matter how the law is modified.
The fear held by this man has undoubtably been greatly inflated by the
outright lies told about the law.
Will changes in the law satisfy opponents, or will they just start lying
about the new, watered-down ESA? I say the latter. What do you do then,
Brent - cave in to the new lies and weaken it further? Where do you
draw the line?
By the way, if he really did this intentionally that's actionable...
>Now I have my answer, you have NOT understood a word I have written. I
>specifically stated that the ESA and other environmental restrictions
>should remain intact. Protective regulations are vital to safe-guarding
>our natural resources but their effectiveness could be greatly enhanced by
>providing conservation incentives.
OK, we do already often provide conservation incentives. What additional
incentives should we offer?
This will not solve the problem, of course...we've seen those who
take conservation easement money from the USF&W manage to greatly
limit the acreage protected while maintaining the same income. This
after literally decades of operating under very clear wording making
it clear that easements to fluctuating wetlands in their entirety were
being paid for.
So, we offer new incentives, and then the wreckers take the money and
fight to avoid having to actually do the conservation work being paid
for.
These people will ALWAYS be around. You seem to want to work towards
satisfying those who will never be satisfied as long as any regulatory
control - with or without compensation - exists.
>No, we will help the farmers find new markets for natural ecosystems. Can
>you say ecotourism?
Yes, now this is an idea worth exploring.
Interestingly, in Harney County, OR (home of my cherished Malheur
NWR), this is not only becoming a new source of revenue but has
recently caused the unthinkable - a split in the unified political
front offered to outsiders regarding local land-use issues. An
outfitter, son of a many-generation rancher, wants to make a permanent
destination resort on private land on Steens Mountain, which will
require a zoning change. Most of the local ranchers agree, but a
handful of locals very much disagree, fearing the precedent will lead
to development by outsiders (gawd, I hope no Californians are reading
this and getting ideas! :) These locals, who've always sided with
ranchers against conservationists on grazing issues, are finding themselves
on their hands and knees begging the conservation community to help them
fight this zoning change.
The letter asking for help written by a local hotel owner sounds like
it was written by an EF!-er, I swear. UNBELIEVABLE!
>> <<<<Well, if we don't find better ways to make landowners willing
>partners
>> in
>> conservation, we'd better get used to watching the threatened,
>endangered,
>> and extinct lists grow.>>>>>>>
I agree with this, but I'd rather see a reward system set up for
those who go "above and beyond" the law, rather than attempt to
mollify those who fundamentally oppose reasonable conservation
efforts. These bottom-feeders will always remain rooted in the
muck.
This is perhaps where you and I differ.
--
Brent L. Brock
Don Baccus <dho...@pacifier.com> wrote in article
<5l58tg$71p$1...@news.pacifier.com>...
> In article <01bc5e1c$6cab6b80$Loca...@sage.jc.net>,
> Brent L. Brock <blb...@ksu.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > >Another thing that bothers me about your attitude is an apparent
> > >selfishness that ALL wildlife be made accessible to the public.
> >
> > If we did this, we'd have to open up all National Wildlife Refuges
> > that typically are closed up seasonally, which would be a big mistake.
Definitely, public interest does not equate to public access.
> >
> > >Look at the voting record of the Kansas delegation prior to this
current
> > >mob of goons. I've got news for you but part of the reason Kansas
> voters
> > >swung toward the right was because they believe the rhetoric about
> overly
> > >restrictive environmental regulation. I don't agree with them but the
> fact
> > >that enough voters believe it to affect election outcomes indicates a
> need
> > >for some policy changes.
> >
> > This is where you and I part ground. I think we need more effective
> > politicking, not a change in policy.
Well, if you are suggesting that the status quo is sufficient, I couldn't
disagree more strongly. The Threatened and Endangered list is growing,
salmon runs, Pacific old growth, and songbird populations are shrinking.
We
have managed to clean up much of our water just in time to run out of it.
As I (and many other biologists) see it, the problem is that we have
created a safety net of protective regulations that were really designed to
be a last resort but we are using them as the mainstay of our conservation
tool kit. We need to change this policy to add layers of conservation
programs that reduce the need to invoke the safety net regulations. This
will mean moving to landscape and ecosystems level conservation strategies
and finding creative new ways to bring private landowners in as willing
conservation partners. Public and private lands will require different
approaches since the government has much more authority over how public
lands are managed. Successful conservation on private lands will require a
greater degree of volunteerism.
>> We see these pendulum swings
> > in politics, there's no helping it - and changing policy won't
> > stop these swings.
There's no arguing against that but I'm not willing to throw in the towel
and say there is no way to reduce the range of those swings.
> >
> > You'll note, too, that the Republicans have been forced to get damned
> > sneaky in order to weaken laws. I'm beginning to hate disasters, the
> > Oklahoma bombing led to the Salvage Rider, this year's floods to the
> > (limited) weakening of the ESA based on a pack of lies by Pombo and
> > this state control over right-of-way fiasco by Ted Stevens of Alaska.
I think this is a load of crap too, but the Republicans wouldn't be doing
such things if they didn't think they had enough constituent support to
make it politically smart.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I and many other conservationists (and you, I suspect,
> > Brent) can't bring ourselves to lie about "the other side" though the
> > other side has no problem lying about the ESA and other law. We're
> > stuck with the truth - which is often an ugly truth, of course.
There are some people on the left who certainly aren't above lying either.
You're right though, I still believe that misrepresenting the facts has a
tendency to backfire because sooner or later your credibility is going to
be questioned.
> >
> > Anyway, the right has succeeded to a small degree in swaying public
> > opinion against certain regulatory laws, i.e. the ESA and wetlands
> > protection. However, it is obvious that these laws still are supported
> > by a large majority of voters, as the Republicans found out after
> > Newtie et al swept to power.
Of course they are but you also have to consider that support is greatly
diminished among the ag industries community who happen to be the ones with
the land we are so interested in. Of course the majority of Americans who
own small or no land holdings would support the ESA because they have
nothing to lose. I'm not knocking the ESA, just making an observation.
> >
> > Note that after this happened, they lied about facts regarding the
> > ESA and stuff like wetlands protection, and were honest about their
> > efforts to gut such laws.
> >
> > After a severe public reaction, they've now been forced to go back
> > to their old tricks of lying both about the existing laws, and about
> > the changes they propose to make, which they now claim will strengthen
> > protection (at least, this is the most common lie). For instance,
> > digging out probably the last handful of academics who believe in "old
> > forestry" in order to give scant credibility to the claim that the
> > Clinton Forest Plan, crafted by a couple of hundred scientists who
> > do active research in PNW forests, is "bad science". Then claiming
> > that salvage logging is only being proposed because "good science"
> > supports it.
Agreed again, but again, this wouldn't be part of Republican policy if it
weren't supported by a significant number of constituents, or at least a
significant $ worth of constituents.
> >
> > The Wise Use folks have grabbed the propaganda machine and crank it
> > up, but that doesn't mean we should cave in. If a new approach is
> > adopted, paying for "takings" or whatever, they'll just fight that.
> > Their goal is to end ALL regulatory control over conservation, no
matter
> > what form it takes and no matter how fairly private landowners are
> > treated.
> >
> > Until the public understands that, we're in deep shit.
Of course there are groups who want total control of public and private
lands and these groups occur on both sides. The groups on the right
currently seem to have much more momentum but my fear of these goons is not
going to make me abandon my support for fairness. I hate the Wise Use
movement but not everyone who is concerned about compensation is a wise
user.
> >
> > Sometimes, Brent, I think you're a bit naive in regard to conservation
> > politics, at least as they're conducted out here...
Well, I certainly wouldn't support basing a nation-wide conservation policy
based solely on what goes on in the Northwest. You need to understand that
conservation issues are not a boiling cauldron everywhere in the US. In
much of the country, the issues are more of a low simmer and private
landowners are very concerned about how environmental regulations are going
to affect the way they do business. I'm talking about individuals, not the
Farm Bureau or the Cattlemen's Assoc. who can take a flying #$@% as far as
I'm concerned (that ought to keep me unemployed for awhile :-) ).
>> you actually seem
> > to buy the argument that those proposing changes are just seeking
> > ways to more fairly achieve conservation goals, rather than the reality
> > that they're wreckers.
I know that everyday farmers and ranchers make small decisions that
influence wildlife populations and that many of these same farmers and
ranchers are genuinely afraid of ESA and wetlands restrictions. I'm not
saying that these fears are warranted but they are there and influencing
how private lands are managed nonetheless. I should also add that there
are vast acreages of private land that could host endangered species and
the landowners could destroy every ounce of habitat and no one would ever
no it. The ESA is darn near impossible to enforce on most of America's
real-estate.
> >
> > >None of this paragraph makes any sense to me. All I'm saying is that
> when
> > >you purchase property, it's use is restricted by applicable laws and
you
> > >are obligated to honor those laws. If the laws change WHILE you are
the
> > >property owner, then you should be entitled to compensation for loss.
> > >That's the way eminent domain has always worked and it's written into
> the
> > >Constitution.
> >
> > Well, such changes happen all the time when zoning laws change, and
> > each time there are winners and losers, and the losers aren't typically
> > reimbursed for decreased value nor do winners pay for increased value.
I know this all too well. Until you've been on the wrong side of this type
of thing I doubt you could really understand how it can affect people. I
nearly lost my home and my entire life savings because sewage disposal
restrictions had changed while we owned our current house. When we went to
sell our house, we were expected to bring our system up to current code.
The only problem was that it was impossible to meet the new requirements on
our property. Despite the fact that local licensed septic contractors said
there was no problem with our system, the Health Dept. pressed on since
they weren't required to show ANY evidence that our current system MIGHT be
creating in health hazard. We finally got the issue resolved but only
after taking out a second mortgage on our home and purchasing 9 additional
lots. The low point of the whole ordeal was when we received a letter
during the Christmas season that we had two weeks to vacate our home or be
arrested and thrown in jail. As a result of this whole thing, we were
unable to sell our home and I was unable to relocate to further my career
and we are still paying that second mortgage. I hope from this you can
understand why I am a little sympathetic to people who get screwed by the
government.
> >
> > This whole "takings" thing first hit the courts early this century, and
> > it was over urban zoning, not rural zoning (which is what wetlands
> > regs and the like boil down to).
> >
> > Government's limited right to overrule private property rights in
> > order to promote the public good is also written in the Constitution,
> > and the court cases involving zoning draw guidelines which set the
> > legal boundaries for when such changes in law do constitute "takings".
> >
> > The decisions essentially say "yes, they can contitute a 'takings'
> > but don't always constitute a 'takings'".
> >
> > The whole "takings" movement we see today want to overthrow that
> > body of Constitional law. Ironically, though, not for urban zoning
> > but only for narrowly-defined, environmental regulations which is
> > why opponents like me keep ranting that fair treatment of landowners
> > has nothing to do with why such changes are being pushed. The idea
> > is to require reimbursement - then refuse funding. In this way,
> > such regulations can be quietly ended (in effect) without directly
> > repealing them - which would be political suicide. It's simply a
> > politically safe way of ending these regulations.
Frankly, I'm a little shocked at the response I've gotten to the mere
mention of the word compensation. I merely said that compensating
landowners for actual loss incurred as a result of complying with
government restrictions might be a way to relieve some of the resistance to
such regulations. Of course this would never satisfy the timber industry
or the other political groups that have alterior motives for pushing
takings legislation but it would help calm the fears of many landowners
that I know.
> >
> > I have no doubt that you, yourself, truly are seeking fair treatment
> > of private landowners but by supporting such legislation you are doing
> > two things:
> >
> > 1. Causing those subject to rural zoning laws to be treated differently
> > under the law than those subject to urban zoning laws, which as an
> > urban dweller I object to because it is unfair to me.
How so? First, I never said I supported ANY legislation, I merely said
that the ESA and other environmental restrictions should not be held exempt
from the Constitutional takings clause. Second, a person who suffers
personal loss for the greater good should be compensated regardless of
where they live.
> >
> > 2. Being an accidental "fellow traveller" with those who seek to use
this
> > to end environmental regulation of private lands. They welcome the
> > support of the well-meaning now, and then when appropriations that
> > actually pay for "takings" come up they'll quietly ignore the public
> > and do what they want. Since the machinations behind the
> appropriations
> > process is so complex and archane, not even experts can easily
follow
> > it and it's much easier to do sneaky destruction this way, than
> through
> > up-front repeal.
It sounds like you might be arguing the "slippery slope" which I don't buy
whichever way it is applied. I didn't buy it when they were fighting the
Brady Bill and I don't buy it here. If legislation could be crafted (and
again, I'm not saying I support any specific legislation) that results in
an INCREASED effectiveness of the ESA (or any conservation legislation) by
compensating landowners, then I am for it. What bothers me is that many
environmentalists simply won't even discuss the possibility, arguing that
the ESA is a moral obligation. I'm for anything that is effective in
preventing another ivory-billed woodpecker from getting snuffed out. I'm
willing to pay landowners compensation IF such compensation actually
produces results.
> >
> > I think the Courts have done a pretty reasonable job with "takings"
> cases.
> > Many private landowners have lost, some have won, and the line seems
> > pretty fairly drawn to me.
> >
I agree and I think the courts are the appropriate venue for deciding such
things. What bothers me is that every time a landowner wins, the
environmentalists jump up and down about how wrong the decision was. The
reverse happens as well but I'm more concerned with the environmentalist
reaction because it sends a message that reinforces the others sides
suspicions. Just to make sure I am absolutely clear, I do not support any
of the takings proposals that I have seen, but I don't entirely reject the
concept. I also don't think the ESA should be held above Constitutional
law as some advocates seem to propose. To do so would create the "Big
Brother" that everyone fears.
> > >What weakens a law is when it loses public support. Prohibition and
the
> > >National speed limit come to mind. If the public decides the ESA
causes
> > >more hardship to private landowners than it is worth, then it will
> > >disappear. I don't want that to happen and with a little tweaking I
> think
> > >it could be prevented.
> >
> > The ESA enjoys something like 70% approval in this country, and it
isn't
> > just polls by conservationists that show this. The Republicans
> understand
> > this better than you, apparently, because they are working hard to
attack
> > bits of it quietly (like the current Pombo rider to the flood-disaster
> > legislation) through lies, and by end-arounds like "takings"
legislation.
> >
> > They're aware that a national referendum on this issue would lead to
> > a tremendous victory for ESA, which continues to be one of the most
> > popular pieces of legislation passed in this country since that which
> > repealed prohibition.
Don, I know you understand politics better than this. When was the last
time any Republican or Democrat considered the views of the entire Nation
excluding times of war? They push the legislation that will get them
re-elected and Republicans are elected by the people who want the ESA
weakened. Since there are more legislators elected by people who support
the ESA than those who do not, legislators have to resort to underhanded
schemes to accomplish the desires of their constituents.
Regarding the popularity of the ESA. The fact that 70% of Americans
support it means little if the 30% who don't control 90% of the private
land. Of course a person in urban Boston is going to support the ESA, what
is at stake? Without support of those in control of the private land, the
ESA will never reach its full potential.
> >
> > The ESA could be improved, of course, and also very few seem to
> understand
> > that the ESA has in effect been greatly weakened through the
> appropriations
> > process. Very little money has been passed to work on proposed
listings,
> > then the backlog is trotted out as evidence the Act is a failure.
Which provides the appropriate time to say: write your Congressmen and
tell them you support the Teaming With Wildlife initiative. This will
provide stable funding for programs like ESA plans.
> >
> > >> <<<<Here's an example of what the current system can cause, and this
> > >> happened
> > >> practically in my backyard. A few years ago the Kansas Biological
> Survey
> > >> identified a sizable tract of wet tallgrass prairie. I don't
remember
> > >the
> > >> details but they knew that the Federally endangered Meade's milkweed
> at
> > >> one
> > >> time lived on the property and believed this was one of the last
> > >> populations of the plant in the state. It didn't matter because as
> soon
> > >> as
> > >> the guy found out he might have an endangered species on his place,
he
> > >> freaked and plowed the entire prairie in the middle of the night.
> This
> > >> kind of thing sickens me. Why was such a valuable natural resource
> lost,
> > >> and why have we constructed such an atmosphere of paranoia?>>>>
> >
> > These kinds of thing are going to happen no matter how the law is
> modified.
I never said I wanted to modify the ESA. I said I wanted to create
programs that would prevent this paranoia in the first place.
> > The fear held by this man has undoubtably been greatly inflated by the
> > outright lies told about the law.
No doubt, which is why I think we need to do some additional work.
> >
> > Will changes in the law satisfy opponents, or will they just start
lying
> > about the new, watered-down ESA? I say the latter. What do you do
then,
> > Brent - cave in to the new lies and weaken it further? Where do you
> > draw the line?
Please tell me where I gave the impression that I wanted to amend the ESA.
You're not the only one who interpreted my posts this way so I have to
assume I've been unclear somewhere.
> >
> > By the way, if he really did this intentionally that's actionable...
He did it intentionally, but it wasn't actionable because the KBS had no
proof that Meade's Milkweed currently existed on his property. There was
no
evidence that it didn't exist there either, just that it had occurred there
in the past. In short, we don't know what we lost and you can't arrest the
guy for what he might have done.
> >
> > >Now I have my answer, you have NOT understood a word I have written.
I
> > >specifically stated that the ESA and other environmental restrictions
> > >should remain intact. Protective regulations are vital to
safe-guarding
> > >our natural resources but their effectiveness could be greatly
enhanced
> by
> > >providing conservation incentives.
> >
> > OK, we do already often provide conservation incentives. What
additional
> > incentives should we offer?
I already gave one example of the hybrid pond design which should be
incorporated into all NRCS pond cost-share specifications. What I would
really like to see is something along the lines of money for enhancement of
extension services that would be specifically geared toward aiding
landowners in developing eco-tourism and other non, or less, extractive
alternatives to agronomic land use. I'm not suggesting that landowners
would convert entire farm or ranching operations to conservation friendly
uses but maybe they could convert that back 40 that gets flooded every
other year to wildlife habitat and still make a few bucks off of it. I
would really like to see programs that help landowners take advantage
endangered species or high quality habitat windfalls so they would be eager
to preserve or even enhance their habitat acreage. Along these lines we
might provide low interest loans for seed capitol to start eco-tourism
operations. A good example might be a guy who wants to give guided wolf
tours to cash in on having these critters on his or her property. Above
all, I would provide money for EDUCATION so landowners can't help but here
about others who have successfully cashed in on maintaining high quality
wildlife habitat. This is really where showcasing the successful holistic
managers would come into place.
For those suburban dwellers, I would like to see tax incentives for
restoring suburban lots to natural vegetation. There are millions of acres
of potential wildlife habitat in the suburbs that are largely being ignored
except for some token urban wildlife programs. Suburbs could be developed
as serious habitat for species that typically need high quality undisturbed
habitat. For many species, it's not the houses or the human activity that
excludes them, it's the damn lawns. Ambitious as it may be, if we could
make natural yards as popular as lawns are now, we could make huge gains in
curbing songbird declines. As defense for tax incentives, it could be
argued that lawns create a tax burden to society by creating air pollution,
and consuming fossil fuels from lawnmowers, and contributing to surface and
groundwater pollution from fertilizers and pesticides. These are problems
that require tax dollars to combat and the tax incentives would be nothing
more than a refund for not contributing to the problem.
I'm sure there must be hundreds of other ideas just waiting to surface.
> >
> > This will not solve the problem, of course...we've seen those who
> > take conservation easement money from the USF&W manage to greatly
> > limit the acreage protected while maintaining the same income. This
> > after literally decades of operating under very clear wording making
> > it clear that easements to fluctuating wetlands in their entirety were
> > being paid for.
Of course it won't solve all problems, there are cheaters everywhere, but
certainly there is more that can be done to safe-guard our resources.
> >
> > So, we offer new incentives, and then the wreckers take the money and
> > fight to avoid having to actually do the conservation work being paid
> > for.
That's a pretty pessimistic attitude, don't you think? I'm not satisfied
with the status quo and am willing to explore ANY options that will produce
results. I think we'll be more successful if we maximize the number of
people who are satisfied with the policies.
> >
> > These people will ALWAYS be around. You seem to want to work towards
> > satisfying those who will never be satisfied as long as any regulatory
> > control - with or without compensation - exists.
No, I want to satisfy the people on the edge who would like to contribute
to conservation but are afraid to get involved with the government.
> >
> > >No, we will help the farmers find new markets for natural ecosystems.
> Can
> > >you say eco-tourism?
> >
> > Yes, now this is an idea worth exploring.
> >
> > Interestingly, in Harney County, OR (home of my cherished Malheur
> > NWR), this is not only becoming a new source of revenue but has
> > recently caused the unthinkable - a split in the unified political
> > front offered to outsiders regarding local land-use issues. An
> > outfitter, son of a many-generation rancher, wants to make a permanent
> > destination resort on private land on Steens Mountain, which will
> > require a zoning change. Most of the local ranchers agree, but a
> > handful of locals very much disagree, fearing the precedent will lead
> > to development by outsiders (gawd, I hope no Californians are reading
> > this and getting ideas! :) These locals, who've always sided with
> > ranchers against conservationists on grazing issues, are finding
> themselves
> > on their hands and knees begging the conservation community to help
them
> > fight this zoning change.
> >
> > The letter asking for help written by a local hotel owner sounds like
> > it was written by an EF!-er, I swear. UNBELIEVABLE!
I've heard of other such stories as well. Of course your story also brings
up some of the pitfalls of eco-tourism. I don't think we want to create
more Gatlinburg Tennessee's. Anyone who's been there knows what I'm
talking about - ELVIS LIVES!!!
> >
> > >> <<<<Well, if we don't find better ways to make landowners willing
> > >partners
> > >> in
> > >> conservation, we'd better get used to watching the threatened,
> > >endangered,
> > >> and extinct lists grow.>>>>>>>
> >
> > I agree with this, but I'd rather see a reward system set up for
> > those who go "above and beyond" the law, rather than attempt to
> > mollify those who fundamentally oppose reasonable conservation
> > efforts. These bottom-feeders will always remain rooted in the
> > muck.
I agree with this 100%. Where we may differ is that I would be willing to
pacify opponents IF it produced the desired results. I wouldn't give my
life to save the $10 in my wallet, and I wouldn't give the red cockaded
woodpecker for the same $10. Having said that, "mollifying the
bottom-feeders" will never work because it will only encourage more
bottom-feeders until the system collapses under the burden. We can,
however, make doubly sure that conservation restrictions are fair and just,
and then keep drumming this fact into the public's mind until public
perception reflects this truth.
> >
> > This is perhaps where you and I differ.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baccus
In article <01bc6019$718dd260$14588281@Ranger>,
Brent L. Brock <blb...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>As I (and many other biologists) see it, the problem is that we have
>created a safety net of protective regulations that were really designed to
>be a last resort but we are using them as the mainstay of our conservation
>tool kit. We need to change this policy to add layers of conservation
>programs that reduce the need to invoke the safety net regulations.
I agree entirely with this. However, I must also be realistic given
the current political climate. Currently, the battle line is being
drawn over the existence of these safety nets, and those who are pushing
"takings" laws are aiming directly at these safety nets.
At the moment, it is impossible to add significant layers of protection
given disagreement for the need for conservation of our biological heritage
(vs. conserving maximum timber harvest!) by the ruling party in both
Houses at the national level.
Maybe our disagreement is based on my being rooted in the current
extremist political climate, and you're taking a broader view?
>This
>will mean moving to landscape and ecosystems level conservation strategies
>and finding creative new ways to bring private landowners in as willing
>conservation partners. Public and private lands will require different
>approaches since the government has much more authority over how public
>lands are managed. Successful conservation on private lands will require a
>greater degree of volunteerism.
Again, I agree entirely, and even in the current hostile environment
some progress is being made in cobbling together such cooperation.
The victory of the Newties, though, really hurt that, at least out
here. The timber companies, fearing the worst after Clinton's
election, made a lot of noise about cooperation and appeared ready
to dicker but once Newtie one, they just laughed and broke out
the victory champagne. In nasty, public fashion they basically
said "screw conservation, we've won again".
My cynicism is based on large part from observing two industries:
the PNW timber and grazing industries. Both don't flinch when a
gun is placed to their head, you must cock the hammer first. They
promise that if the gun is replaced with a weaker enforcement tool,
say a wagging finger, that they'll behave but in every case where
compromise has been reached, they use the first moment of weakness
to sieze the initiative and weaken conservation.
Perhaps my cynicism is misplaced when applied to other industries
and areas of the country, but it certainly is not here.
>There's no arguing against that but I'm not willing to throw in the towel
>and say there is no way to reduce the range of those swings.
Well, in reality I'm not going to either, but I'm not going to let this
optimism blind me to current reality, either.
>I think this is a load of crap too, but the Republicans wouldn't be doing
>such things if they didn't think they had enough constituent support to
>make it politically smart.
Yes, they can satisfy their core constituency - business - who are smart
enough to recognize the effects of such "stealth" legislation, while
at the same time fooling the less sophisticated. The reality is
that many Americans simply don't understand, or don't care, about
such issues. And many who care simply don't follow the machinations.
Even if they have the smarts to do so one needs to be a news junky
(like me!) in order to catch them in many cases, and I miss a bunch
of stuff myself. As do conservation groups. A lot of crap just goes
through so quietly that it never hits any radar screen, so only
those with a narrow interest to be served really learn about it.
This makes it politically safe to do such things, regardless of the
level of constituent support (in terms of votes, not well-placed
contributions) because they never become campaign issues.
>There are some people on the left who certainly aren't above lying either.
Of course, and I'm speaking of serious, science-aware conservationists
who aren't necessarily of the left. There's that false dichotomy
again, placing conservationists on the left...the founder of the
Oregon Natural Resources Council, perhaps the most radical conservation
group in the state, is and was a lifelong Republican who even voted
for Reagan. He was director of ONRC for many years and is still active
in conservation...
>Agreed again, but again, this wouldn't be part of Republican policy if it
>weren't supported by a significant number of constituents, or at least a
>significant $ worth of constituents.
It's the latter, of course. They must work to satisfy timber, grazing
and mining interests which prop up many of the conservative western
politicians while not pissing off too many voters who care about
conservation.
The trick, of course, is to only do enough harm so that conservation
issues remain fairly low on the list of voter priorities.
Polls after the last couple of elections indicate that voters know
(and dislike the fact that) the Repubs they're voting in will do
harm to conservation laws if given the chance, but that they felt
the Dems would screw every thing else up.
The big mistake after the Newties won the mid-terms in Clinton's
first term was that they set out to do such harm at such a quick
pace that conservation/environmental issues became a higher priority
in the minds of many voters, threatening the Republican majority.
So, now they're nibbling towards the same goal at a slower pace, hoping
to keep the environmental issues from hitting the top couple of spots
of the individual voter's priority list.
>Of course there are groups who want total control of public and private
>lands and these groups occur on both sides. The groups on the right
>currently seem to have much more momentum but my fear of these goons is not
>going to make me abandon my support for fairness. I hate the Wise Use
>movement but not everyone who is concerned about compensation is a wise
>user.
And, of course, there is fair compensation in many cases. As I said,
I think the courts have done a pretty good job of marking out the
gray areas, as well.
Before talking about fair compensation, one should study current
compensation plans in depth.
I admit I haven't, but then again the "takings" folks within the Wise
Use groups aren't talking fair compensation, they're talking death to
regulation by instituting a very unfair level of compensation.
>Well, I certainly wouldn't support basing a nation-wide conservation policy
>based solely on what goes on in the Northwest.
To a large extent, nation-wide conservation policy is being set based
on what goes on in the West. That's just a reality, so I won't comment
on the appropriateness of it. Western Senators, mostly conservative
and anti-conservation, are driving resource policy.
>You need to understand that
>conservation issues are not a boiling cauldron everywhere in the US.
I understand that very well. If it weren't true, a handful of
conservative western Senators wouldn't be driving the issues in
Congress...
>In
>much of the country, the issues are more of a low simmer and private
>landowners are very concerned about how environmental regulations are going
>to affect the way they do business. I'm talking about individuals, not the
>Farm Bureau or the Cattlemen's Assoc. who can take a flying #$@% as far as
>I'm concerned (that ought to keep me unemployed for awhile :-) ).
But it is these organizations that do the lobbying, and the individual
farmer/rancher voice is not heard. I know that many western ranchers
quietly would like to see the world change, too - but the lobbying
organizations have lives of their own, perhaps financed by industrial
ag interests? I dunno.
>I know that everyday farmers and ranchers make small decisions that
>influence wildlife populations and that many of these same farmers and
>ranchers are genuinely afraid of ESA and wetlands restrictions.
Again, though, much of that fear comes from being bombarded by lies
about what will really happen to their land and operations.
So, I suggest starting with educating them as to the truth, something
the government sadly has failed to do.
And the government is guilty of typical bureaucratic fuckups as well.
You seem to be saying "react to their being lied to by changing the
laws as though the lies are true, not by exposing the lies". That
would seem to simply cement distrust which will carry over to whatever
replacement laws come on the books...
>I'm not
>saying that these fears are warranted but they are there and influencing
>how private lands are managed nonetheless. I should also add that there
>are vast acreages of private land that could host endangered species and
>the landowners could destroy every ounce of habitat and no one would ever
>no it. The ESA is darn near impossible to enforce on most of America's
>real-estate.
Yep, that's true.
>I know this all too well. Until you've been on the wrong side of this type
>of thing I doubt you could really understand how it can affect people. I
>nearly lost my home and my entire life savings because sewage disposal
>restrictions had changed while we owned our current house. When we went to
>sell our house, we were expected to bring our system up to current code.
>The only problem was that it was impossible to meet the new requirements on
>our property. Despite the fact that local licensed septic contractors said
>there was no problem with our system, the Health Dept. pressed on since
>they weren't required to show ANY evidence that our current system MIGHT be
>creating in health hazard. We finally got the issue resolved but only
>after taking out a second mortgage on our home and purchasing 9 additional
>lots. The low point of the whole ordeal was when we received a letter
>during the Christmas season that we had two weeks to vacate our home or be
>arrested and thrown in jail. As a result of this whole thing, we were
>unable to sell our home and I was unable to relocate to further my career
>and we are still paying that second mortgage. I hope from this you can
>understand why I am a little sympathetic to people who get screwed by the
>government.
Of course. But is it the law that's at fault, or an inability to
build an administrative system that remembers it serves the people?
To his credit, Babbitt's been working to streamline the administration
of the ESA, for instance. I call that focusing on the real problem,
and while I don't know if lasting change will be successful, can always
hope.
How would changing the ESA or any other law help this? If the
administration is carried out by vindictitive, anti-public
bureacrats they'll just administer the new tool the same way.
Friends in Frenchglen inherited a messy gas tank leak (at their
service station) when they bought their business. Ran into stone
walls at our DEQ, etc. The woman half of the partnership had vast
experience in marketing and advertising (having run her on ad
agency) so ran to the press. Voila'! The DEQ trotted right out.
"How can we help SOLVE this?". Etc. They ended up with a solution
fair to all but it sucks that they had to run to the press to get
public support to lean on the DEQ. Our DEQ leadership is very
sensitive to the perception that they're "bad cops", but the lower
ranks apparently don't get the "serve the people" message. The
press coverage woke up the leadership to the specific case, which
then apparently leaned on the little Nazi underneath who was
working the case...
Other than tossing such laws entirely, it is hard to see how changing
them will change the bureaucracy, though...
>Frankly, I'm a little shocked at the response I've gotten to the mere
>mention of the word compensation. I merely said that compensating
>landowners for actual loss incurred as a result of complying with
>government restrictions might be a way to relieve some of the resistance to
>such regulations. Of course this would never satisfy the timber industry
>or the other political groups that have alterior motives for pushing
>takings legislation but it would help calm the fears of many landowners
>that I know.
At some point in this thread, you - perhaps accidently - appeared to
align yourself with the "takings" movement, which of course is not at
all about fair compensation. It isn't your fault they've managed to
dress their case in seemingly reasonable trappings, nor that they've
invented a piece of jargon that doesn't really describe what they're
after.
So, you've hit a sensitive spot with many folks who equate the word
"takings" with the movement which has adopted that word.
>> > 1. Causing those subject to rural zoning laws to be treated differently
>> > under the law than those subject to urban zoning laws, which as an
>> > urban dweller I object to because it is unfair to me.
>How so? First, I never said I supported ANY legislation, I merely said
>that the ESA and other environmental restrictions should not be held exempt
>from the Constitutional takings clause.
They aren't. The courts have ruled on many such cases regarding wetlands
and other such laws, in some cases for landowners, in some cases against.
There's currently an ESA "takings" case working its way through the
Oregon court system.
Hopefully you don't believe the boundary between the Constitutional
"takings" clause and the public good clauses should never be explored
in court??? That's essentially what these cases are doing. In no
way are these laws exempt from the takings clause, nor has anyone
suggested they should be.
This is one of the myths of the takings movement.
Now, of course, they deny that the Constitutional right to further
the public good, etc can ever overrule the "takings" clause. In
other words, their basic argument is that the "takings" clause has
supremecy, though there's no basis for this in the words of the
actual document...
>Second, a person who suffers
>personal loss for the greater good should be compensated regardless of
>where they live.
So I should be paid to not run cows in my back yard?
>It sounds like you might be arguing the "slippery slope" which I don't buy
>whichever way it is applied. I didn't buy it when they were fighting the
>Brady Bill and I don't buy it here. If legislation could be crafted (and
>again, I'm not saying I support any specific legislation) that results in
>an INCREASED effectiveness of the ESA (or any conservation legislation) by
>compensating landowners, then I am for it. What bothers me is that many
>environmentalists simply won't even discuss the possibility, arguing that
>the ESA is a moral obligation.
Mainstream conservation groups have offered many suggestions for reworking
the ESA. Currently, they won't touch a rewrite or twiddle because the
current environment leans towards gutting it. The best tactical approach
for the moment seems to be to hold on to it the way it is, with hopes
of improving it later. Mainstream conservation groups have spoken
of increasing flexibility as part of a rewrite.
Also, the ESA allows for far more flexibility than is currently
understood by most. Look at what Babbitt's done with HCPs in
the state of Washington, for instance.
You don't suppose the Bush and Reagan administrations intentionally
avoided taking advantage of this built-in flexibility in order to
strengthen arguments that it's inflexible, do you? Nah, couldn't
be...
>I agree and I think the courts are the appropriate venue for deciding such
>things. What bothers me is that every time a landowner wins, the
>environmentalists jump up and down about how wrong the decision was. The
>reverse happens as well but I'm more concerned with the environmentalist
>reaction because it sends a message that reinforces the others sides
>suspicions.
Well, the press looks for those who react that way and ignore those
who say, "huh, the court's right in this case". Most of these cases
have very narrow applicability.
>Just to make sure I am absolutely clear, I do not support any
>of the takings proposals that I have seen, but I don't entirely reject the
>concept.
Well, neither do I. Stick to calling it "fair compensation" and you'll
piss a lot less people off...
>I also don't think the ESA should be held above Constitutional
>law as some advocates seem to propose. To do so would create the "Big
>Brother" that everyone fears.
I'm not aware of those who do so, but certainly agree with you.
>> > They're aware that a national referendum on this issue would lead to
>> > a tremendous victory for ESA, which continues to be one of the most
>> > popular pieces of legislation passed in this country since that which
>> > repealed prohibition.
>Don, I know you understand politics better than this. When was the last
>time any Republican or Democrat considered the views of the entire Nation
>excluding times of war?
They do so when control over a body of Congress dangles by a number
of close races, as was true last time, and where polls show that in
most of those races the Repubs had accidently made environmental
issues a high-priority one...and that this issue was a big reason
for Clinton's resurgance and political rebirth.
Hmm...I suppose I could just say "they care every four years"...
>They push the legislation that will get them
>re-elected and Republicans are elected by the people who want the ESA
>weakened.
Not really. They're elected by those, and by those who don't rank
this as a high priority compared to, say, job security and other
stuff.
>Regarding the popularity of the ESA. The fact that 70% of Americans
>support it means little if the 30% who don't control 90% of the private
>land. Of course a person in urban Boston is going to support the ESA, what
>is at stake? Without support of those in control of the private land, the
>ESA will never reach its full potential.
Some do, some don't, will be the same under any ESA-type law.
>Which provides the appropriate time to say: write your Congressmen and
>tell them you support the Teaming With Wildlife initiative. This will
>provide stable funding for programs like ESA plans.
Yes, Portland Audubon has officially supported this for years, as
does Partners In Flight (I'm on the OR/WA steering committee).
>I never said I wanted to modify the ESA. I said I wanted to create
>programs that would prevent this paranoia in the first place.
Education and outreach programs, for instance? I'd favor this with
less emphasis on enforcement, in a moment. Since this might work,
though, the wreckers aren't going to pay for it...
>Please tell me where I gave the impression that I wanted to amend the ESA.
> You're not the only one who interpreted my posts this way so I have to
>assume I've been unclear somewhere.
Oh, boy, I don't have time to deja-news this stuff, as I'm soon to
be out of town for three weeks.
But the impression was there, and several interpreted it that way, as
you point out.
>He did it intentionally, but it wasn't actionable because the KBS had no
>proof that Meade's Milkweed currently existed on his property. There was
>no
>evidence that it didn't exist there either, just that it had occurred there
>in the past. In short, we don't know what we lost and you can't arrest the
>guy for what he might have done.
OK.
>I already gave one example of the hybrid pond design which should be
>incorporated into all NRCS pond cost-share specifications.
That's not compensation in the sense we've been speaking of, but
rather incentive.
The same folks I mentioned in regard to gas tank problems are taking
advantage of USF&W incentives (their place is across the street
from the Malheur NWR) to relandscape their property in a bird-friendly
fashion. USF&W will help with design and pay half the cost of transplanting
stuff from the refuge to their property.
>What I would
>really like to see is something along the lines of money for enhancement of
>extension services that would be specifically geared toward aiding
>landowners in developing eco-tourism and other non, or less, extractive
>alternatives to agronomic land use.
Sure, no problem here. And all that I've snipped afterwards.
>> > So, we offer new incentives, and then the wreckers take the money and
>> > fight to avoid having to actually do the conservation work being paid
>> > for.
>That's a pretty pessimistic attitude, don't you think? I'm not satisfied
>with the status quo and am willing to explore ANY options that will produce
>results. I think we'll be more successful if we maximize the number of
>people who are satisfied with the policies.
It isn't at all pessimistic, it's real. I simply mean you have to realize
that there will always be opposition to any conservation, and it is
naive to think otherwise. After what happened when laws in the 70s
we should plan the defense during the victory party.
That's what happened with oregon's land-use laws, BTW - the guv who
passed them formed a non-profit (1000 Friends of Oregon) to watchdog
the state government at the time of victory.
Pessimism or realism? His vision turned true, either way, as his
watchdog has had to sue many times to maintain enforcement.
Dwight U. Bartholomew
> > > You'll note, too, that the Republicans have been forced to get damned
> > > sneaky in order to weaken laws. I'm beginning to hate disasters, the
> > > Oklahoma bombing led to the Salvage Rider, this year's floods to the
> > > (limited) weakening of the ESA based on a pack of lies by Pombo and
> > > this state control over right-of-way fiasco by Ted Stevens of Alaska.
>
> I think this is a load of crap too, but the Republicans wouldn't be doing
> such things if they didn't think they had enough constituent support to
> make it politically smart.
I may be getting cynical but I think, Brent, that you are being
incredibly naive
if you think that "constituent support" is always the bottomline for
politicians.
For one thing, an issue like the environment isn't that important to
voters (although
I sure wish that it were). This means a Congressperson can probably go
around
slaughtering endangered species (or having endangered fishfries :-( and
still
get elected. I mean, think of the absolute looney-tune
anti-environmentalists
that there are in Congress and ask how they got there.
Look at it this way. The current heads of Congressional committees
related to the
environment are what most (and I do mean most) knowledgable people would
call anti-environmentalists. What does this tell you about the GOP's
concern
about the natural environment?
I can understand when you say that urban dwellers are not at the
frontline of
the environment (not like the rural dwellers). That's a very good
point.
But we DO have some heavy duty environmental problems that need to be
addressed
(if we care about natural conservation). These are very complex
problems.
The GOP isn't helping any by leaning some far towards people who want to
ruin the environment. They're being pretty darned stupid.
Thanks for reading this,
Dwight
Brent L. Brock
Don Baccus <dho...@pacifier.com> wrote in article
<5lcm62$ju2$1...@news.pacifier.com>...
> In article <01bc6019$718dd260$14588281@Ranger>,
> Brent L. Brock <blb...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> At the moment, it is impossible to add significant layers of protection
> given disagreement for the need for conservation of our biological
heritage
> (vs. conserving maximum timber harvest!) by the ruling party in both
> Houses at the national level.
There is always room for programs that benefit both sides of an issue.
>
> Maybe our disagreement is based on my being rooted in the current
> extremist political climate, and you're taking a broader view?
That's probably correct. I also don't have to deal with public lands
issues directly and in your area it seems like public and private land use
policies are somewhat tied together. That's not the case in the Midwest.
[snip]
>
> Perhaps my cynicism is misplaced when applied to other industries
> and areas of the country, but it certainly is not here.
>
As far as I've seen, when you look at industries as a whole, they all seem
to be overly rigid and radical in their demands. I think part of the
reason is because industry advocacy groups need to keep convincing their
members that membership is important and part of the way they do this is to
continually invent or exaggerate crises. It's probable different where you
are but around here most ranchers seem to go about their business as they
wish regardless of what the Cattlemen's Assoc. says. The biggest influence
the association has is in influencing ranchers general attitudes about
government policy.
> >There's no arguing against that but I'm not willing to throw in the
towel
> >and say there is no way to reduce the range of those swings.
>
> Well, in reality I'm not going to either, but I'm not going to let this
> optimism blind me to current reality, either.
>
Of course we have to keep our guard up but I do think there is still
opportunity for conservationists and individuals in the extractive
industries to come to terms. There is a lot of mistrust and
misunderstanding on both sides which gets whipped up by groups like the
Cattlemen's Assoc. and Green Peace. If we could bypass the advocacy groups
and just get individuals talking face to face, we might find resolution. I
know this is already being done in many areas and it seems to be working.
[snip]
>
> This makes it politically safe to do such things, regardless of the
> level of constituent support (in terms of votes, not well-placed
> contributions) because they never become campaign issues.
Absolutely.
>
> >There are some people on the left who certainly aren't above lying
either.
>
> Of course, and I'm speaking of serious, science-aware conservationists
> who aren't necessarily of the left. There's that false dichotomy
> again, placing conservationists on the left...the founder of the
> Oregon Natural Resources Council, perhaps the most radical conservation
> group in the state, is and was a lifelong Republican who even voted
> for Reagan. He was director of ONRC for many years and is still active
> in conservation...
>
Good point, I often refer to the "left" and the "right" as a convenience
but it probably isn't appropriate.
> >Agreed again, but again, this wouldn't be part of Republican policy if
it
> >weren't supported by a significant number of constituents, or at least a
> >significant $ worth of constituents.
>
> It's the latter, of course. They must work to satisfy timber, grazing
> and mining interests which prop up many of the conservative western
> politicians while not pissing off too many voters who care about
> conservation.
>
> The trick, of course, is to only do enough harm so that conservation
> issues remain fairly low on the list of voter priorities.
>
Right again.
[snip]
>
> >In
> >much of the country, the issues are more of a low simmer and private
> >landowners are very concerned about how environmental regulations are
going
> >to affect the way they do business. I'm talking about individuals, not
the
> >Farm Bureau or the Cattlemen's Assoc. who can take a flying #$@% as far
as
> >I'm concerned (that ought to keep me unemployed for awhile :-) ).
>
> But it is these organizations that do the lobbying, and the individual
> farmer/rancher voice is not heard. I know that many western ranchers
> quietly would like to see the world change, too - but the lobbying
> organizations have lives of their own, perhaps financed by industrial
> ag interests? I dunno.
Admittedly, the lobbyists will be extremely difficult to counter. I don't
have any idea of what could be done to solve it either. If you try to band
the individual farmers and ranchers together so their voice can be heard
then you just end up with another lobbyist advocacy group.
>
> >I know that everyday farmers and ranchers make small decisions that
> >influence wildlife populations and that many of these same farmers and
> >ranchers are genuinely afraid of ESA and wetlands restrictions.
>
> Again, though, much of that fear comes from being bombarded by lies
> about what will really happen to their land and operations.
>
> So, I suggest starting with educating them as to the truth, something
> the government sadly has failed to do.
Yes, this was supposed to be a major point in my original posts but it got
lost in the reaction about the "takings" that I never mentioned.
>
> And the government is guilty of typical bureaucratic fuckups as well.
I have a friend who worked as the assistant to the Assistant Sec. of Ag in
the Reagan administration who has many hair raising stories about
government dip-wads who really screwed good citizens.
>
> You seem to be saying "react to their being lied to by changing the
> laws as though the lies are true, not by exposing the lies". That
> would seem to simply cement distrust which will carry over to whatever
> replacement laws come on the books...
I hope you don't still think that after reading the rest of my post. I
will say, however, that I wouldn't balk if the ESA was amended to include
a clause that simply re-affirmed that Constitutional law would apply to any
disputes over compensation. In other words, I have no problem with adding
wording that doesn't really change the ESA but might reduce a little of the
paranoia. I would call it more of a PR move.
>
>
> Of course. But is it the law that's at fault, or an inability to
> build an administrative system that remembers it serves the people?
I would say it was both. The laws were placed on the books without
demonstrating any need what so ever for such regulation changes. The
reason given by the Health Dept. for the change was that they thought the
EPA would be making these changes on a National level. To date this hasn't
happened. The administrative system refused to acknowledge the wording in
the codes that allowed flexibility at their discretion and rigidly
interpreted the rest of the codes. Beyond that, this administration was
many things that would require breaking every etiquette standard ever
written if I started going into details.
>
> To his credit, Babbitt's been working to streamline the administration
> of the ESA, for instance. I call that focusing on the real problem,
> and while I don't know if lasting change will be successful, can always
> hope.
Agreed, Babbitt ticks people off on both sides which indicates he's doing
something right.
>
> How would changing the ESA or any other law help this? If the
> administration is carried out by vindictitive, anti-public
> bureacrats they'll just administer the new tool the same way.
Speaking broadly rather than specifically about the ESA, some laws are
written so specifically as to deny administrators any lee-way when they see
something that could be improved. Of course overly broad laws are even
worse since they are constantly being battled in the courts. The ESA was a
good example of a law that was written too strictly because it severely
limited management flexibility for endangered and threatened species as was
affirmed in Clark v. Sierra Club which ruled that hunting could not be used
as a tool to benefit wolves. This was fixed with sect. 10(j), the
experimental population clause, without which, the reintroduction of wolves
to Yellowstone would probably not have occurred. I bring this up only as
an example that legislation CAN be strengthened by amendment. Of course
the reverse is also true.
>
> Friends in Frenchglen inherited a messy gas tank leak (at their
> service station) when they bought their business. Ran into stone
> walls at our DEQ, etc. The woman half of the partnership had vast
> experience in marketing and advertising (having run her on ad
> agency) so ran to the press. Voila'! The DEQ trotted right out.
> "How can we help SOLVE this?". Etc. They ended up with a solution
> fair to all but it sucks that they had to run to the press to get
> public support to lean on the DEQ. Our DEQ leadership is very
> sensitive to the perception that they're "bad cops", but the lower
> ranks apparently don't get the "serve the people" message. The
> press coverage woke up the leadership to the specific case, which
> then apparently leaned on the little Nazi underneath who was
> working the case...
There was much "bad press" about the way our health dept. was doing
business but neither they or the county commissioners cared.
>
> Other than tossing such laws entirely, it is hard to see how changing
> them will change the bureaucracy, though...
The particular law that affected us should have been tossed. It was
ill-conceived and not necessary. Worse, there is much in the code that I
find environmentally objectionable which is ironic since the code was
designed to protect health and environment. Bad laws do get passed.
>
> >Frankly, I'm a little shocked at the response I've gotten to the mere
> >mention of the word compensation. I merely said that compensating
> >landowners for actual loss incurred as a result of complying with
> >government restrictions might be a way to relieve some of the resistance
to
> >such regulations. Of course this would never satisfy the timber
industry
> >or the other political groups that have alterior motives for pushing
> >takings legislation but it would help calm the fears of many landowners
> >that I know.
>
> At some point in this thread, you - perhaps accidently - appeared to
> align yourself with the "takings" movement, which of course is not at
> all about fair compensation. It isn't your fault they've managed to
> dress their case in seemingly reasonable trappings, nor that they've
> invented a piece of jargon that doesn't really describe what they're
> after.
>
> So, you've hit a sensitive spot with many folks who equate the word
> "takings" with the movement which has adopted that word.
For convenience, I've taken the liberty of pasting my original post that
started this whole argument. I don't see the word takings anywhere in it
and the word compensation only appears once. If someone could point out
what part of this post sounds like I'm supporting the "takings"
legislation, please let me know where it is so I don't make the same
mistake twice.
My original post follows: --------------
Don Baccus <dho...@pacifier.com> wrote in article
[rest snipped]
--
----------------------------------------------------
Brent L. Brock
Kansas State University
Dept. Agronomy, Range Science
blb...@ksu.edu
----------------------------------------------------
-------------------- end post
>
> >> > 1. Causing those subject to rural zoning laws to be treated
differently
> >> > under the law than those subject to urban zoning laws, which as
an
> >> > urban dweller I object to because it is unfair to me.
>
> >How so? First, I never said I supported ANY legislation, I merely said
> >that the ESA and other environmental restrictions should not be held
exempt
> >from the Constitutional takings clause.
>
> They aren't. The courts have ruled on many such cases regarding wetlands
> and other such laws, in some cases for landowners, in some cases against.
> There's currently an ESA "takings" case working its way through the
> Oregon court system.
I'm relieved that we agree on this.
>
> Hopefully you don't believe the boundary between the Constitutional
> "takings" clause and the public good clauses should never be explored
> in court??? That's essentially what these cases are doing. In no
> way are these laws exempt from the takings clause, nor has anyone
> suggested they should be.
I absolutely agree with this and an openness to legal exploration of these
boundaries was basically what I was thinking about when I mentioned
compensation in that first post.
>
> This is one of the myths of the takings movement.
>
Agreed again. MAYBE a this myth could be defrayed a little by the type of
"dummy" amendment mentioned earlier. Of course I doubt such an amendment
would ever successfully make it out of committee.
> Now, of course, they deny that the Constitutional right to further
> the public good, etc. can ever overrule the "takings" clause. In
> other words, their basic argument is that the "takings" clause has
> supremecy, though there's no basis for this in the words of the
> actual document...
I'm no legal expert but my reading of the Constitution agrees with yours on
this matter.
>
> >Second, a person who suffers
> >personal loss for the greater good should be compensated regardless of
> >where they live.
>
> So I should be paid to not run cows in my back yard?
No, because you have not suffered a loss. You have no history of every
running cows in your back yard (I assume) or any indication that you ever
intended to do so. I'm also assuming that zoning prohibits such use of
your property, and that the zoning was in place at the time you purchased
your property. You cannot prove an unrecoverable loss, so you should be
compensated accordingly - you get nothing. However, I am filing for
sanctions against you for filing a frivolous claim <g>.
>
[snip]
>
> Also, the ESA allows for far more flexibility than is currently
> understood by most. Look at what Babbitt's done with HCPs in
> the state of Washington, for instance.
>
> You don't suppose the Bush and Reagan administrations intentionally
> avoided taking advantage of this built-in flexibility in order to
> strengthen arguments that it's inflexible, do you? Nah, couldn't
> be...
Good point. As I read the ESA, I see a lot of potential for flexibility
but I can't think of many examples of when this flexibility was applied.
Ironically, most of the attempts at exercising the Acts flexibility that I
can think of were fought by environmental groups who won in court.
>
>
> Well, the press looks for those who react that way and ignore those
> who say, "huh, the court's right in this case". Most of these cases
> have very narrow applicability.
A MAJOR problem indeed. The press has a tendency to give both sides of any
issue black eyes by misrepresenting them with wackos. They don't do the
public any service.
>
>
> Well, neither do I. Stick to calling it "fair compensation" and you'll
> piss a lot less people off...
Well, as you can see from my original post, I DID refer to it as
compensation and I still pissed people off. Then again, I've always been
good at pissing people off. Ask my brothers <vbg>.
>
>
> I'm not aware of those who do so, but certainly agree with you.
Fortunately, I don't know any personally but I've seen this type of
argument on several of the newsgroups.
[snip]
>
> Not really. They're elected by those, and by those who don't rank
> this as a high priority compared to, say, job security and other
> stuff.
Yes, of course, an oversight on my part.
>
> >Regarding the popularity of the ESA. The fact that 70% of Americans
> >support it means little if the 30% who don't control 90% of the private
> >land. Of course a person in urban Boston is going to support the ESA,
what
> >is at stake? Without support of those in control of the private land,
the
> >ESA will never reach its full potential.
>
> Some do, some don't, will be the same under any ESA-type law.
Although I don't have a citation to prove it, I'll bet the approval rating
is much lower for people owning 160 acres or more as opposed to those
owning less than 160 acres.
>
> >Which provides the appropriate time to say: write your Congressmen and
> >tell them you support the Teaming With Wildlife initiative. This will
> >provide stable funding for programs like ESA plans.
>
> Yes, Portland Audubon has officially supported this for years, as
> does Partners In Flight (I'm on the OR/WA steering committee).
>
> >I never said I wanted to modify the ESA. I said I wanted to create
> >programs that would prevent this paranoia in the first place.
>
> Education and outreach programs, for instance? I'd favor this with
> less emphasis on enforcement, in a moment. Since this might work,
> though, the wreckers aren't going to pay for it...
And once again, support Teaming With Wildlife. No, I'm not getting
kickbacks from this.
>
> >Please tell me where I gave the impression that I wanted to amend the
ESA.
> > You're not the only one who interpreted my posts this way so I have to
> >assume I've been unclear somewhere.
>
> Oh, boy, I don't have time to deja-news this stuff, as I'm soon to
> be out of town for three weeks.
I had to do it to satisfy my own curiosity and I'm still at a loss. The
only thing I can think is that I was misinterpreted and it snowballed from
there.
>
> But the impression was there, and several interpreted it that way, as
> you point out.
>
[snip]
>
> >I already gave one example of the hybrid pond design which should be
> >incorporated into all NRCS pond cost-share specifications.
>
> That's not compensation in the sense we've been speaking of, but
> rather incentive.
Which was the emphasis of my original post. I gave the example as an
attempt to clarify my intention but it didn't work.
>
> The same folks I mentioned in regard to gas tank problems are taking
> advantage of USF&W incentives (their place is across the street
> from the Malheur NWR) to relandscape their property in a bird-friendly
> fashion. USF&W will help with design and pay half the cost of
transplanting
> stuff from the refuge to their property.
>
[snip]
>
> >That's a pretty pessimistic attitude, don't you think? I'm not
satisfied
> >with the status quo and am willing to explore ANY options that will
produce
> >results. I think we'll be more successful if we maximize the number of
> >people who are satisfied with the policies.
>
> It isn't at all pessimistic, it's real. I simply mean you have to
realize
> that there will always be opposition to any conservation, and it is
> naive to think otherwise. After what happened when laws in the 70s
> we should plan the defense during the victory party.
>
> That's what happened with oregon's land-use laws, BTW - the guv who
> passed them formed a non-profit (1000 Friends of Oregon) to watchdog
> the state government at the time of victory.
>
> Pessimism or realism? His vision turned true, either way, as his
> watchdog has had to sue many times to maintain enforcement.
Oh. I thought you were saying that it would only be a matter of time
before the wreckers rendered them useless. Yes, there will always be
opposition. If people will protest against cloning and the irradiation of
food to sterilize it, they will protest anything.
--
----------------------------------------------------
Brent L. Brock
Kansas State University
Brent L. Brock
Dwight U. Bartholomew <dwi...@infrared.csc.ti.com> wrote in article
<3379F2...@infrared.csc.ti.com>...
>
> I may be getting cynical but I think, Brent, that you are being
> incredibly naive
> if you think that "constituent support" is always the bottomline for
> politicians.
> For one thing, an issue like the environment isn't that important to
> voters (although
> I sure wish that it were). This means a Congressperson can probably go
> around
> slaughtering endangered species (or having endangered fishfries :-( and
> still
> get elected. I mean, think of the absolute looney-tune
> anti-environmentalists
> that there are in Congress and ask how they got there.
I agree that the situation is more complex than I indicated but I didn't
think anyone would want to suffer through a complete dissertation on my
views of how the political system works. The bottom line is that
Congressmen need to get re-elected so they do what they can to please as
many and piss off as few of their constituents as they can. Of course what
they do is also influenced by PACs and other contributors which give them
plenty of money to let the Congressmen BS the public into voting for them.
>
> Look at it this way. The current heads of Congressional committees
> related to the
> environment are what most (and I do mean most) knowledgable people would
> call anti-environmentalists. What does this tell you about the GOP's
> concern
> about the natural environment?
It's my impression though, that the average Congressperson won't let a fart
without checking how it will affect them in the polls first so there must
some support for anti-environment policies in these guys districts to some
degree. In some cases the GOP's actions aren't necessarily initiated by
anti-environment views of their constituents, but anti-government. The end
result is the same.
>
> I can understand when you say that urban dwellers are not at the
> frontline of
> the environment (not like the rural dwellers). That's a very good
> point.
> But we DO have some heavy duty environmental problems that need to be
> addressed
> (if we care about natural conservation). These are very complex
> problems.
> The GOP isn't helping any by leaning some far towards people who want to
> ruin the environment. They're being pretty darned stupid.
I agree completely and I don't understand what political game this new
batch of Republicans is playing. When the ESA was up for re-approval a
while back Newt whipped up his flock into a frenzy toward gutting the bill.
Then when the Senate committee convened Newt got himself scheduled to
testify and talked up the ESA like it was the greatest bill ever written
and only suggested some minor tweaks. At least that was the part of his
testimony I heard on NPR, the complete transcript might tell a different
story.
--
----------------------------------------------------
Brent L. Brock
Kansas State University