Last edited Sun Feb 7, 2016, 12:47 AM - Edit history (4)
The reason the land at the refuge was turned into managed land was that at the time of its endowment it was barren nearly water-less waste that had been trampled into dust by over-grazing. It was removed from general public use to provide an area of safe passage for migrating birds which had been severely impacted by the same overgrazing practices. The fool who believes that land must serve a mechanical economic need has obscured the economic impact of the migrating fowl and the contribution to the state and local economy by tourist dollars.
In fact the only reason ranching remains possible in areas like Eastern Oregon is the success of BLM and Dept of Forestry management. When the land was set aside the ranchers had almost exhausted it and their future.
Those vested in reducing the land to its least mechanical and economic functions have no apparent plan for the future of that land beyond the next profit statement. What happens to the people living in those areas once the minerals and trees are gone? What will their herds eat and drink once the grazing areas are ruined from over use and the runoff has nothing to hold it on the land? There are much better plans in many places showing how the land may be saved and used more wisely than slash, burn, and dig. There are better long term development plans for rural areas like this one than one more mining slag pile.
Some have suggested that the land shouldn't be used for commerce at all and that it has far higher value as an ecological balance to the enormous parts of planet which have already been exploited, much as the rain forest areas of South America do. One economic value for this kind of application is the work involved in protecting and managing the land.
There are Hundreds of small towns in the Western states that stand ghostly testimony to the results of short sighted development for mining and cattle. Much of eastern Montana has a string of ghost towns from the period when the Railroad companies encouraged city dwellers with no concept of agriculture to come to an area which gets only a few inches more rain than the Sahara and engage in "Dry Land Farming". Most of those towns lasted less than 25 years.
I won't go into just how much water it takes to grow cattle. There are several good estimates that can be found online. I won't address the damage to marginal topsoil done by grazing domestic cattle. That too is only a google search away.
The high desert areas of the Western states like the land where the refuge is sited are marginal for native wild creatures as it is. Asking it to tolerate more disruptive human activity or increased domestic grazing is a death sentence to all the creatures living there as well as the humans nearby.
All hat, No cattle refers to someone who talks like a rancher but has no experience of the world cattle inhabit other than perhaps from the seat of a pickup. Those who understand the need to balance the use of the land cattle and other creatures inhabit are very aware of how fragile the land is and where the water goes when that balance is not respected. When the water is gone all the creatures are threatened whether they have wings, 4 legs, 2 legs or no legs at all, including Conservative Republican Legislators.
= new reply since forum marked as read
