I understand the habitat part. But I find it hard to believe that a few hundred cattle could do more damage than what used to be a 30+ million strong bison herd. I also believe that these ranchers would make sure the ranges provided ample food and would work to improve the area. When you make a living raising livestock it's counterproductive to allow them to destroy the grazing grounds and starve. There's no money in skinny cows and arrid land. The farmers around here, and in every state I'm sure, spend thousands of dollars improving wildlife habitat. Food plots, irrigation systems, and predator/nuisance animal control are all heavily practiced for conservation. If dirt farmers and ranchers in the south do it just to improve deer, duck, and turkey hunting then I'm pretty sure those in the south west practice it also. Nevada has mule deer, sheep, antelope, goats, not to mention quail, grouse, partridge, and other game that brings in out of state hunters with $$$. Those ranchers want as much of that cash as they can get and will spend big bucks improving their chunk of dessert to get it. I have some land about 2 miles from my home that we duck hunted, pretty good fishing also. We planted millets, corn, soybeans, and rice for the ducks. Those food plots were beneficial to the quail, deer, and rabbits as well. The feds took it over and posted it. Now it's just a big ass sage grass field with a weed choked slough. A levee board employee told me it was purchased for dignitaries to use. Dignitaries? I asked. "Yeah, you know. Politicians that hunt" Way to go feds.
Hate it all you want, but when you're one of the biggest super powers, and the leader of the free world, yes you tend to take on that role. Countries bitch about the US all the time, but when someone comes knockin' on their door, who do they call to come to their defense?
Well when you have 48% of the country paying no income tax, and the Dems offering them a middle class lifestyle with no investment on their part, of course the lazy constituent base is going to be all over it.
Lots of that 48% are Republicans, Hoss. It's a very bi-partisan group includes lots of retired people, the disabled, students, and all of those working middle-class people with so many child credits and dependents that they owe no taxes, and yes, the working poor whose income is so low that they owe less tax than the same standard deduction that everybody can take. Of course there are the 1%'ers, whose offshore tax havens allow them to evade much tax. That 48% remark by Romney may have cost him the election because many of the voters he might have counted on began to wonder if he was really the candidate for them.
http://ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S...rancher//RK=0/RS=VsfSMwAM5WfpA4.IbRakvObnYh4- Makes you go hmmm?
Western lawmakers strategize on taking control of federal lands http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-strategize-on-taking-control-federal-lands/ States are starting to take action.
The talk and blather raised in this article that bothers me. I am as conservative as most here and my opinion of the president and the democrats is pretty well know. I do believe in the representative federal system that has been in place for 215 years where the constitution is the guide and elections are the tools to shape our society. The most important idea that provides for a means to keep civil society going is the idea that elections and change of government from one side to the other give an incentive for balance and moderation in our politics. DO I believe that the AHCA is a good idea? As many have noted I don't yet it was passed by congress and certified constitutional by a conservative supreme court. It is law as are many others I may disagree with and I will obey it. I will also work to change it to become more in line with my idea of good practice by advocating and voting. I hope and expect that those who agree will find electoral majority soon and craft laws to fix the flaws. That is the way we have operated since 1789 with one very disastrous exception (!860-65). If we don't act through electoral and legal means we are no different that the failed states that litter history and the world. The talk of taking action as noted in the article and not recognizing the US government's legal standing that has been so prevalent is more than disturbing. It is fraying the strands that make our society work. It is ignoring history, legal precedent and the very constitution those supposedly conservative and patriotic politicians purport to revere. Bundy seems little more than a thief; one who has been at it for 30 years. Those who claim he has only been doing what has been happening in the past ignore that past and all the other who have paid their dues. He has been getting dunned for his theft for 30 years buy BOTH R & D led government. If he thought he was helping manage the range he would have followed the law. If he was the patriot he claims he wouldn't have sought support for so called militias that don't recognize the government. Do you remember history and the Whiskey Rebellion? That movement was put down by George Washington because those so called militia didn't recognize the primacy of the federal government. It is the feds right to regulate the militia (LOL). If the leaders of the western states wish to have the federal land ceded to them then do it through legal action...Elect enough who agree and have a federal law passed that accomplishes that. The land was Federal property before any state or locality had rights and part of the act of becoming states required them to acknowledge the federal lands. SO those who want to make changes...go for it...that is your right. However go through the procedure (electoral & legal) that have made the US a shining success for all of our glorious history. That is acting the patriot. To do otherwise is like taking your ball and going home because you don't like the call....childish, irresponsible and treasonous.
The states should decide what's best for them. I believe they can do a better job of managing the land than the Feds.
