🚀 go-pugleaf

Doug.Bashford%ow@salata.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:

:  
:   Funny how the Republicans and dittoheads have decided that 
:   welfare for the rich is ok, but not for poor mothers.   
:   Examples are Welfare Cowboys, Welfare Loggers, Welfare Farmers,
:   and Welfare Miners.

Clever...  But do you have some real data?  Why not just provide some 
detailed data about how much each of the above groups is getting -- and 
_why_ they are getting it (like the Government is telling them to _stop_ 
producing in order to maintain a certain level of supply (artificially), so 
that there is no glut in the market).  Or, rather than rant and make up 
cute names -- point out that _at_least_ these people are _producing_ 
something for all the money we give them (not that we should continue to 
support them -- just that at least they aren't laying around on the couch 
sucking back another beer).

:   In each case they have fought Clinton's plans to roll back
:   taxpayer funded subsidies.  I guess that contrary to what 
:   Limbaaah says, the Republican Party really is the Party for 
:   the rich.  Can any other conclusion be reached?

First, how are you defining "rich"?  If you use Clinton's definition -- 
anybody with $1 more than _me_ is rich...  Second, let's see some data how 
just how "rich" all these people are.  And I _don't_ want to see the 
shallow references to the "corporation" that earns millions and still gets 
a subsidy -- I'd rather hear about how many people they employ, and how 
"rich" those people are...

:   Why else would the Republicans be gutting scientific research
:   into the facts of environmental degradation.  Such as defunding
:   the National Biological Survey?  Could it be that they do not
:   want scientific facts getting in the way of the Rich Boys who
:   care little for America the Beautiful?  What other reason could
:   there be?   Why this fear of science?

I guess I missed this legislation...  Can you cite some specifics?

Also, since when is the "government" responsible for funding all "science".  
This is a pretty new phenomena...  I personally reject the notion that the 
government is responsible for "all" things.  If you support this cause so 
much, how much are you willing to donate to see that it is performed?  Why 
don't you go on a fund-raising crusade and see if you can muster the 
support necessary to keep this effort funded?

:   It is believed that the environmental degradation caused by
:   the 3% of cattlemen who are Welfare Cowboys grazing on Public
:   Land causes more damage than all the clearcutting combined.

By whom is this "believed"?  I'm sure you have some sort of science that 
supports your conclusion -- but I don't see it here...  Perhaps you can 
point me to the URL where this research is freely available for all of us 
to read...

Also, precisely what "damage" are these "cattlemen" causing?  Are you 
referring to their livestock, or to them personally?

:   This degradation is not appreciated by the the public when they
:   see it because they do NOT see it.  Why?  The degraded state
:   is what we have been born into, that is what we assume is the
:   natural state.  Multi generational environmental degradation
:   is rarely noticed.  Does that mean it is ok?   I suppose that 
:   some could argue that it is.
:   --Doug Bashford

Funny, I don't see this degradation...  ;-)

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.


:    Yep, Jay Hanson wrote on 02 Aug 95  10:17:16 
:     about:   Re: more Welfare Cowboys? (eco):
: Crossposted:

:  I found this in my files and thought some
:  of you might be interested:

:  ---------------------------------------------------

:  SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY POSITION STATEMENT:

:  LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON PUBLIC LANDS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

:  Extent of Livestock Grazing in the Region

:  Grazing by domestic livestock is the most ubiquitous land
:  management practice in the western United States.
:  Approximately seventy percent of the eleven western states
:  are currently grazed, including virtually all western
:  ecosystem types-subalpine meadows, forests, grasslands,
:  deserts, woodlands, and chaparral and other shrublands.
:  All types of public lands are grazed, including national
:  forests, lands managed by the Bureau of Land
:  Management, wildlife refuges, military installations,
:  wilderness areas, even national parks and monuments, as
:  well as a variety of state, regional, and county lands.  This
:  represents a dramatic ecological change because most
:  western ecosystems supported few, if any, large grazing
:  mammals before Euro-American settlement.  Those large
:  mammals that did exist previously, such as bison and
:  pronghorn, had very different food habits, behavior, and
:  ecological effects.

How are cattle grazing habits "very different" from Bison, or Longhorn 
cattle (which have grazed here for centuries)?  What _specifically_ is 
different, and why is this "bad"?

:  Ecological causes for concern

:  Most rangelands are currently in deteriorated ecological
:  conditions.  Past grazing practices have had detrimental
:  effects on the composition, function, and structure of native
:  ecosystems.

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".  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 
properties.  Perhaps we should increase the subsidies we pay to 
beneficiaries of this land, to encourage even more use.

:  Livestock grazing has led to a decrease in native species
:  richness in a broad array of ecosystem types.  

A new term -- "eco-babble"...  Just like "psycho-babble", but with an 
environmentalist bent...

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"?

:Additionally,
:  a wide variety of taxa has experienced a decrease in
:  population densities under grazing pressure.

It is an invalid assumption that they are dieing due to "grazing pressure".  
Clearly _MANY_ environmental variables have changed since grazing has 
begun.  Likewise, many species have come and gone in the timeframes prior 
to the start of grazing (by domesticated livestock).  Please explain how 
you intend to quantify the "decrease" that relates to grazing pressure 
(without first assuming that there _is_ such a relationship -- scientific 
method frowns on such assumptions), as opposed to the "decrease" (oh yeah, 
make sure you simply quantify a "decrease" first!) caused by nuclear 
testing at Alamogordo (or airplanes flying overhead while the little fuzzy 
critters are trying to "make it").

: In addition to
:  the more conspicuous megafauna and flora, microbiotic
:  taxa, such as mycorrhizae which are essential for higher
:  plants, have been affected. 

Just out of curiosity, how does one go about quantifying the affect on 
"microbiotic" taxa?  Do you stick a vial in a stream and check the number 
of "mycorrhizae" in your vial?  How can you be sure that "grazing" has had 
_any_ affect on these little critters?  Even if their numbers are changing 
_radically_ how can you definitively say that the change is due to 
"grazing"?  Maybe the little guys just got tired of hanging around the same 
old place...

: Of particular concern are rare
:  taxa, which can be put at high risk by livestock. 

Why?  This sounds like a very impressive statement -- but when you look 
carefully it is just another unsubstantiated _wild_ assertion.

: Other
:  causes for concern about the ecological influence of
:  livestock grazing include increases in alien species,
:  alteration of animal foraging guilds, control of native
:  predators and grassland species for economic gains, and
:  increases in livestock-borne diseases among native wildlife
:  species such as bighorn sheep.

Oops...  How are "bighorn" sheep any different than domestic sheep?  Why 
are they definitively "better"?  Why does their "grazing" not hurt the 
eco-system, but domestic sheep do?


:  Livestock grazing also affects several ecosystem functions,
:  such as nutrient and hydrologic cycling, and succession.
:  The cycling of nitrogen, the most important limiting nutrient
:  in arid and semiarid ecosystem, is disrupted through
:  trampling damage to microbiotic soil crusts.  Western

Are you _seriously_ suggesting that the trampling done by modern species of 
livestock is somehow different (and/or worse) than the trampling done by 
the _millions_ of head of American Bison, Elk, Deer, Bighorn Sheep, et. al. 
that used to roam the _same_ landscape?  Give me a break?  If a Bison, Elk, 
Deer, ... stomps the poor little plant or microbe, is it any less dead than 
if the Cow, sheep, ... stomps it?

:  ecosystems also lose nutrients because they are tied up in
:  livestock feces, which in some cases cannot be recycled
:  due to lack of appropriate decomposers (for example, dung
:  beetles in the Great Basin). 

So cow-shit is different from buffalo-shit?  Do you really believe that 
cow-dung doesn't decompose naturally (with or without beetles)?  I _defy_ 
you to find me a locale (in the Western US) where I can deposit a load of 
cow-feces that won't decompose _completely_ by the second rain or the 
second month (whichever comes first).

: When livestock are exported to
:  markets, nutrients are lost from western ecosystems on a
:  massive scale. 

You just told us they were _bad_ for the ecosystem...  Make up your mind.  
Perhaps we can convince the slaughterhouses to scatter the remnants all 
over the Western US?

However, please quantify the "loss" (just to make me feel like we aren't 
wasting our time)...  Define _specifically_ how you think this affects the 
ecosystem detrimentally -- while at the same time cow-shit is bad for the 
system.

: Livestock interfere with ecological
:  succession, especially in riparian communities. 

Livestock are _PART_ of the ecological succession.  Since when did "man" 
exit the world ecosystem?  Don't we get an influence on the system too?  
Likewise, our domestic animals are allowed to affect the ecosystem as well.

THIS is the crux of the argument -- on the one side (as described by the 
author of the original work), "man" is an external influence on the 
environment.  Because of this "man" (and all his/her trappings) are to be 
reviled and rejected.  On the other side of the argument (my side), man has 
as much _right_ to participate in the changes in the ecology as 
_any_other_species_.  If we are better at it, or worse at it -- then that 
is our rightful place in the ecology.  We _earned_ the right to destroy our 
environment (if we indeed were) -- simply because we are more intelligent 
and capable than other species.  This does _not_ mean that we "ought" to 
destroy our environment -- just that it is our decision to make.  Further, 
if we choose to replace existing eco-systems with new ones of our choosing 
-- that is _NOT_ 'by definition' a bad thing.  If you want to make it "bad" 
-- it is incumbent upon you to _prove_ why it is bad.

: The quality
:  and availability of water is also diminished by the presence
:  of livestock.  Overall, these activities lead to increased
:  evapotranspiration rates and desertification.

Then why do we have an increasing number of forested acres each year?  
Certainly there was a time that this was true -- but re-forestation efforts 
and careful management have _totally_ reversed these trends.  Likewise, 
conservation and cleanup efforts have led to _vastly_ improved water 
supplies.  I'd really like to see your research on increased 
"evapotranspiration" and "desertification"...  If only because it goes 
against all the current published data...

:  Physical structure of livestock-influenced ecosystems is also
:  altered.  In many cases, vegetation strata are lost because
:  plant regeneration is disrupted by foraging and trampling by
:  livestock.  The activity of livestock removes residual ground
:  cover and soil litter, and compacts soil, leading to
:  decreased water infiltration, and thus increased water runoff
:  and soil erosion.  The net effect of such interactions is a loss
:  of available water to biotic communities.

This is a redundant assertion -- you already asked us to believe that 
trampling by cows was somehow worse than trampling by Bison...  I didn't 
buy into this belief.

:  Livestock, especially cattle, spend a disproportionate
:  amount of time in riparian habitats.  Thus, these sites, which
:  are among the biologically richest in the region, are easily
:  damaged.  Because these communities provide essential
:  habitat for a wide variety of species, this can have severe
:  effects on regional biotas.

_ALL_ species spend more time by the water than they do on dry land...  
(Duh!)  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 
"dumb" animals would simply start hiking on to find the next water hole 
when the one adjacent to thier grazing ground still has water in it?  They 
will loiter near the water hole until either the food runs out, the water 
runs out, or a preditor chases them away...  This is true for _ALL_ 
species.  So why are cattle worse than Elk or Bison?

:  In sum, livestock grazing, which occurs throughout a
:  majority of the American West, has a host of negative
:  ecological repercussions. 

Not saying it doesn't -- but you haven't mentioned any of them yet (at 
least not without _wildly_ unsubstantiated assertions).  Perhaps you could 
point some out (you know -- use some "facts").

: Livestock grazing has reduced
:  densities and biomass of many plant and animal species,

Please quantify said "reduction".  Please identify this quantity as it 
relates _solely_ to livestock grazing (as oppose to a whole host of other 
possible causes).  Please identify why this is 'bad'.

:  reduced biodiversity, aided the spread of exotic species,

Does anyone else think that the above two assertions are contradictory?  
How can you "reduce biodiversity" and "spread exotic species"?  Sounds 
mutually exclusive to me...

:  interrupted ecological succession, impeded the cycling of

Participated in ecological succession.

:  the most important limiting nutrient, changed habitat

Can we assume you mean "water"?  Please quantify rain-fall amounts from 
pre-grazing days, vs. now...  Make sure you account for general changes in 
weather patterns that don't relate to "grazing"...

:  structure, disturbed community organization, and has been
:  one of the most severe impacts on one of the biologically
:  richest habitats in the region.  While undoubtedly there are

?!  Eco-babble again....  Sounds impressive -- doesn't mean _anything_ 
(hell, "severe" could be a good thing!)

:  exceptions to this theme of destruction, clearly much of the
:  ecological integrity of a variety of North American habitats is
:  at risk from this land management practice.

"destruction" is a objective term.  Please refrain from using it without 
any objective rationale...  People might think you are biased -- and not 
just some kook.

:  A Call for Action

:  The ecological evidence is clear that livestock grazing must
:  be drastically reduced in the American West.  We urge the
:  public land management agencies to undertake the
:  following for lands and resources under their jurisdiction:

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".

:  1.  Evaluate the ecological costs and appropriateness of
:  livestock grazing on an ecosystem by ecosystem basis.

:  The public agencies must analyze the ecological dynamics
:  of each ecosystem type to determine whether, and to what
:  extent, livestock grazing has an ecologically justifiable role.
:  The "litmus test" should be the following: Can livestock
:  grazing be done in such a manner that it helps maintain or
:  improve the health, biological diversity, and long-term
:  productivity of this ecosystem?  Livestock grazing on public
:  rangelands is not justifiable unless the answer is a clear
:  and substantiated "yes."

Translation == spend your money to slow progress.

:  2.  Remove livestock immediately from damaged areas,
:  except where it can be shown that grazing provides benefits
:  (as described in #3 below).

:  The land management agencies should act immediately to
:  remove livestock grazing from sites that fit the U.S. Bureau
:  of Land Management definitions of "good" with "stable or
:  declining trends," or worse, rangeland conditions.  Riparian
:  areas are of special concern due to their great biological
:  significance.

If there were such areas -- why would someone want to graze their cattle 
there?  If it was _so_ bad (such that it were killing off other species) 
why would cattle survive?

:  3.  Allow livestock grazing only where, and in such a
:  manner, that it serves positive ecological roles.

What are "positive ecological goals"?  This is one area that you haven't 
mentioned so far...  I believe them to be the proliferation of livestock 
throughout all ecosystems -- do I win?

:  With a view to the longer term, the public land management
:  agencies should initiate steps to phase out livestock grazing
:  from those ecosystem types where the practice does not
:  pass the "litmus test" for ecological justification (see #1

#1 above provides no such "litmus" test.  A "litmus" test is generally a 
binary operation where there are two _clear_ and unequivocal possible 
answers...  Your #1 above is so vague as to allow any bureacrat the 
authority to initiate or eliminate grazing anywhere they please -- soley on 
their personal discretion.

Face it, your "goal" is to eliminate livestock grazing anywhere...  I'd bet 
money you are a vegitarian (or even vegan).  This is your lame attempt to 
incrementally force your lifestyle on the rest of us.

:  above), for example, in desertscrub and desert grassland
:  ecosystems.  For those ecosystem types where livestock
:  grazing does have potentially beneficial ecological roles
:  (for example, achieving and sustaining diversity of
:  vegetation types or successional stages at the landscape
:  scale), the agencies should bring grazing under
:  management that ensures its positive contribution to the
:  health, biological diversity, and long-term productivity of
:  those systems.

eco-babble.  You'd have to start by setting some definable "hazards" and 
quantifiable goals.  Neither of which are provided here...  Both of which I 
_doubt_ are measurable.

:  4.  Help society make informed choices.

This (of course) is the ultimate goal of all 'state' agencies...  (Would 
you like to buy this lovely bridge?)

:  Honestly articulate the ecological costs and consequences
:  of livestock grazing, as well as the beneficial roles grazing
:  can serve if carefully managed in certain ecological
:  settings.  Make scientific information understandable and
:  accessible, so that society can make informed choices
:  about public lands and resources.

For someone who wants to make scientific information available -- you've 
sure provided precious little of it in your article...  Perhaps you 
actually _do_ have such data -- they real issue is why didn't you use this 
article to post it?  (Does it have anything to do with that "honesty" part 
from above?)

:  5.  Establish a network of significant areas where livestock
:  are excluded, to serve as benchmarks for scientific
:  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)?

:  These benchmark areas should be established in all major
:  ecosystem types of the American West, and should be large
:  enough to evaluate landscape-level processes.

I'm sure you would prefer that they cover _all_ grazing areas now in use.

:  6.  Eliminate grazing on public lands where it is
:  accompanied by widespread control of native predators.

Isn't "man" a native predator?  Why can't "man" be substituted for other 
"native" predators?


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
***  These are my opinions... Mine! All Mine! Minemineminemineminemine!   ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin D. Wilson               robin@pencom.com                Pencom Software
701 Canyon Bend Dr.                                 9050 Capital of Texas Hwy
Pflugerville, TX  78660                                     Austin, TX  78759
(512) 251-1737                                                 (512) 343-6666