🚀 go-pugleaf

   Yep, Ross W. Myers wrote to All on 12 Aug 95  18:33:10 
    about:   Re: - Welfare Cowboys? (eco):

M> 
M> From: rmyers@sunspot.nosc.mil (Ross W. Myers)
M> Subject: Re: - Welfare Cowboys? (eco)
M> Message-Id: <DD86zB.MKC@sunspot.nosc.mil>
M> References: <503_9508110700@salata.com> <40gen6$aj7@digdug.pencom.com>

M> In article <40gen6$aj7@digdug.pencom.com>,  <robin@pencom.com> wrote:
 >Doug.Bashford%ow@salata.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:
 >
M> [....................]
 >
 >Also, precisely what "damage" are these "cattlemen" causing?  Are you 
 >referring to their livestock, or to them personally?
 >

M> Not long ago, I picked up a publication at a USFS ranger station
M> in Nevada, entitled "Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian Areas".
M> It was written by Ed Chaney, Wayne Elmore and W.S. Platts, of
M> the Northwest Resource Information Center (publication date July
M> 1990), under contract with the EPA. 

M> On the inside back cover, I found this:

M> U.S. Gov't Printing Office 1991 574-018/113/241/242/243/244

M> Don't know what all these numbers mean, but I imagine
M> that you will find them helpful if you are interested
M> in acquiring a copy (which I strongly urge you, or any
M> interested lurkers, to do!!). 

 USFS?  I thought Smokey Bear carries a chainsaw and married 
 a cow.

M> It describes in great detail the impacts of livestock grazing 
M> in the West, citing case studies where livestock have been 
M> removed from previously over-grazed areas -- it has plenty of 
M> ***before and after*** pictures which are quite dramatic.  

  Such as "dry" creeks popping out of the ground where cattle
  have been fenced out.   Oak trees losing their "browse line",
  and a zillion other things, that any fool could see at 65 mph
  from the road, if they knew what to look for. 

M> Although the document is written in diplomatic language
M> so as not to hurt anybody's feelings, it really is a
M> devastating indictment of many western grazing practices.
 
 B>  This degradation is not appreciated by the the public when they
 B>  see it because they do NOT see it.  Why?  The degraded state
 B>  is what we have been born into, that is what we assume is the
 B>  natural state.  Multi generational environmental degradation
 B>  is rarely noticed.  Does that mean it is ok?   I suppose that 
 B>  some could argue that it is.
 B>  --Doug Bashford
 >
 >Funny, I don't see this degradation...  ;-)
 >

M> That's because you haven't seen the above publication....

M> To see the degradation, you have to know what to look for.
 
 >More importantly, I reject the notion that things are "degrading" due 
 >_mostly_ to human input.  I believe things are changing -- to be sure.  But 
 >_any_ degradation I see is the result of the constant change in 
 >_everything_.  To define it as "worse" or "better" is purely subjective.

  This supposed "constant change in _everything_" is human caused. 
  Evolutionary biologists consider 5,000 years to be instantaneous.

   To define things in your own mind "as "worse" or "better" is 
   purely subjective." is in fact to ignore science.  Contrary to
   Limbaugh's propaganda, reality is not ALL just a matter of 
   (political) opinion.  Systems can be degraded and weakened 
   and human opinion still has no bearing on reality.

M> [....................]

M> I suppose that you don't find a crystal clear, aspen-lined stream 
M> filled with tasty pan-sized trout any more appealing than
M> a cowpie-filled mudhole, but I do. But I guess that's simply
M> because we have different tastes. ;-)

   Some would like to see it that way.   Limbaugh would certainly
   have us believe that.  Of course, so would many with vested
   interests in environmental degradation.  One can can hardly
   blame them, that is their job, after all.  Like Duhhh!

   Why do I feel like such such a fool when I have to point out
   the obvious to dittoheads?   Like pointing out the only 
   tactics vested interests could possibly push is some 
   "maniacal conspiracy theory"?  It's dirt-obvious, and no other
   reasonable conclusion can be reached.  Like Duhhh!.   Wake up
   Polly Annas.

M> [.....................]
 
 B> Most rangelands are currently in deteriorated ecological
 B> conditions.  Past grazing practices have had detrimental
 B> effects on the composition, function, and structure of native
 B> ecosystems.
 >
 >If you define "different" as "detrimental", then I can see the point.  
 

  Nope.  I do not, and as the paper pointed out, it does not either.
 
 >If 
 >you aren't allowed to get away with this rediculous assumption -- why are 
 >any changes "bad"?  How do we know that changes wouldn't have occured 
 >_anyway_?


 Science, pal.  Known outside of Limbaughtomyville as Man's best  
 description of reality.  
 Is it any wonder the Party for the Rich have defunded
 the Biological Survey?  They do not WANT facts; our grandchildren's  
 future to get in the way of their plans.   Like Duh!  Wake up, guy.
 What other possible position COULD they have?   You think they are
 in business for their health?   Your Health?   Your grandkids  health?
 Duhhh!  There is NO Santa Clause, either!  <chuckle>

M> From "Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian Areas"

M> "In fact, extensive field observations in the late 1980's 
M> suggest that riparian areas throughout much of the West were in
M> the worst condition in history.... Many once-productive fish
M> and wildlife populations have been eliminated or greatly 
M> reduced over wide areas of land."

M> "Many streams throughout the West are littered with 
M> the remains of what were once vigorous aspen groves.
M> Aspen reproduce by sending up shoots from roots.
M> If these young plants are constantly grazed off, 
M> eventually the parent trees will die of old age and
M> the aspen will disappear from the site."

M> "Bad" enough for you? And there are plenty more examples
M> where these ones came from...
 
 >If you define "different" as "detrimental", then I can see the point.  
 >If 
 >you aren't allowed to get away with this rediculous assumption -- why are 
 >any changes "bad"?  How do we know that changes wouldn't have occured 
 >_anyway_?
 >By your logic, I choose to define changes as "beneficial".  
 
  Sorry, pal, as I have made clear, that is not my "logic".
  Nor the paper's I quoted, they plainly stated that some 
  change is OK, and how to determine this.  
  This invalidates your "logic" as pure Limbaughtomyville.
 
 >I believe that 
 >the prior "ecosystems" were defective, and the modern grazing techniques 
 >have improved them dramatically.  However, I believe we still have a long 
 >way to go...  We should step up our efforts to graze livestock on federal 

  Another whacko that takes Rush's World seriously?

M> Ummmmm..... I think that I'll leave this one alone...
 
 >Why is a "decrease in native species richness" bad?  Can you quantify the 
 >asserted "decrease"?  Aren't there new species taking the place of old ones 
 >(you just told us that there are now livestock in these locales)?  What is 
 >the "assumed" benefit of "species richness"?

M> Ditto for this one....


M> [.........................]
 
 >Oops...  How are "bighorn" sheep any different than domestic sheep?  Why 
M> groan.......


 B> The quality
 B> and availability of water is also diminished by the presence
 B> of livestock.  Overall, these activities lead to increased
 B> evapotranspiration rates and desertification.
 
 B> Livestock, especially cattle, spend a disproportionate
 B> amount of time in riparian habitats.  Thus, these sites, which
 B> are among the biologically richest in the region, are easily
 B> damaged.  Because these communities provide essential
 B> habitat for a wide variety of species, this can have severe
 B> effects on regional biotas.
 >
 >_ALL_ species spend more time by the water than they do on dry land...  
 
  Oh, brother!  Cattle are tropical animals.  The West is largely
  Desert.  A little science (facts) might be a good place for this
  dittohead to begin.
 
 > Think about it -- there are only a few locations where they can get 
 >water -- and vast stretches of land where water is missing...  How many 
 
  Good thinking, buba.
 
 >What "evidence"?  I haven't seen _ANY_ evidence?  I've seen one bold 
 >assertion after another -- but if this document is missing any one thing -- 
 >it is "evidence".

M> The document that I am recommending that you look at is
M> packed with just the sort of evidence that you claim to
M> be looking for....

M> [...............................]
 
 B> 5.  Establish a network of significant areas where livestock
 B> are excluded, to serve as benchmarks for scientific
 B> evaluation of the ecological effects of grazing.
 >
 >Ah...  So you are admitting that you _don't_ have any data (how could you 
 >-- you don't have any control areas)?
 >
M> 
M> If you bother to track down the publication that I mentioned above,
M> you will find **plenty** of control areas (where livestock
M> have been excluded). The differences between the grazed and
M> non-grazed areas are so dramatic that only someone like
M> Ray Charles could fail to see those differences.

   Bingo!  

M> I highly recommend "Livestock Grazing..." to anyone who
M> is interested in learning more about grazing in the West.
M> With the information that I have provided above, anyone
M> who is interested in reading it should be able to get
M> a copy by making a couple of phone calls. (One to
M> directory assistance and one to the US Gov't Printing Office).

M> Note: From where I am posting, we don't get tx.politics.

... --------  From Dead Central California  ----------