long covid?
American Prairie loses grazing rights
- Thread starter Gila
- Start date
IdahoBeav
WKR
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2017
- Messages
- 1,564
It’s wild that you would mention another subject in which your take is absolutely delusional and devoid of supporting facts
But you do you
I have supplied all of the facts. If you can’t read ‘em or understand ‘em then that isn’t my problem!
You’ve done very little but copy/paste anything you can throw at this. Truly wondering what the point is. Gloating? Convincing folks to join the anti APR bandwagon? Drum up division? None of it feels genuine, mainly because of how you’re going about it, which is just confusing and non-cohesive.
The 1-liner response posts seem like they carry some weight or some argument that’s evident to only you, as if you’re making some inference. But it isn’t there? The stuff you’ve copied in really hasn’t done well to support the argument they should have grazing rights removed, which is the subject. But we’re not actually having a conversation here anyways. No one is changing your mind (based on some past posting); people are just responding to what in their views or experience are bad arguments. I don’t take it as all that genuine unfortunately.
I’ve learned some in reading this so I appreciate you bringing it up. I’m not sure I can honestly articulate what your point is aside from you still do not like APR. They certainly aren’t perfect and the coastal donor concept doesn’t do them any favors from a PR standpoint. It’s unfortunate Bison are still so politicized, and that it takes such a fight, willpower, and investment just to try and park a herd on the landscape (again).
Well, he made sure he got a break on his property taxes to reduce the money available to his local community of ranchers.
johnnycake
WKR
With each new post by @Gila I'm more suspicious that he's actually a bot with particularly inept coding
That’s just stupid…so tell me you wouldn’t appeal if you were charged more for property tax than you were supposed to.
There you go, another ad-hominem personal attack! That just makes you look dumb!
johnnycake
WKR
Still waiting on answers to my questions to you in posts 53, 59, and 104. You've had +3 weeks and yet crickets. Only after you clearly obfuscated and evaded all of my questions did I choose to get snarky.
The irony of the first and second sentences being seriously placed in the same paragraph made me grin.
I just pay my property taxes and don't dig into the assessment. Yours turned a
on an arguable point, not an actual error in assessment.
But, in the end, it is something you actually did, which specifically effects ranchers in your community and thus is related to the quest asked, which you have not answered, by the way.
Very amusingly, most of your arguments against AP actually are ad hominem attacks making wild claims and attacking people associated with the organization rather than addressing the alleged issue you started this thread to discuss or the much better arguments made against your grossly false assertions.
Axlrod
WKR
Me too...
I think starting a go fund me account for APR is the right move now!
KurtR
WKR
Dont lump all ranchers are bad in one group because this moron does not speak for them. I know plenty that are good stewards of the land and wild life thrive on it. Some of them even have buffalo
Some of my best friends are ranchers and they’re great people. One of them is mostly on allotments.
My issue isn’t personal, it’s the entitlement and stranglehold that some push for on public lands and the downstream negative effects for hunters and the general public.
The most prevalent logical fallacies on this thread are the shotgun fallacy where you just blast out another unrelated argument after one gets refuted, slippery slope, ad hominem, and probably the most effective has been guilt by association.
It’s wild to me how well folks have been conditioned to be against anything “environmental” by a very effective long run campaign by lobbies and politicians.
Here we are as hunters, literally arguing against more wildlife and expanding habitat mostly just for the sake that environmentalist want that same thing too. So without even a question or a moment to absorb the absurdity of it some decide they have to be against it because an environmental group is for it.
News flash, it’s okay to agree where we agree. Even with people we don’t share 100% alignment with. In the end the reality is you probably agree with a lot more from that side than you do with the side that convinced you they were your foe. The differences in opinion are important but so are the agreements.
You can be specific in your activism and action. You have the ability to share with your representatives what exactly you like and dislike about a policy. You’re rarely truly opposed to all of something or in agreement with all. Ultimately, you shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater just because the soap used was environmentally friendly.
Expanded hunting access and opportunities provided by the heavy lifting of an environmentally motivated movement is a gift whenever it comes. Don’t argue against it. It shows us as bad faith allies in conservation. Why throw us a bone? If we are just going to sell out habitat and wildlife for whatever industry has convinced us that anything is better than shared cause with environmentalist. Makes us look like we don’t deserve a spot at the conservation table.
It’s wild to me how well folks have been conditioned to be against anything “environmental” by a very effective long run campaign by lobbies and politicians.
Here we are as hunters, literally arguing against more wildlife and expanding habitat mostly just for the sake that environmentalist want that same thing too. So without even a question or a moment to absorb the absurdity of it some decide they have to be against it because an environmental group is for it.
News flash, it’s okay to agree where we agree. Even with people we don’t share 100% alignment with. In the end the reality is you probably agree with a lot more from that side than you do with the side that convinced you they were your foe. The differences in opinion are important but so are the agreements.
You can be specific in your activism and action. You have the ability to share with your representatives what exactly you like and dislike about a policy. You’re rarely truly opposed to all of something or in agreement with all. Ultimately, you shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater just because the soap used was environmentally friendly.
Expanded hunting access and opportunities provided by the heavy lifting of an environmentally motivated movement is a gift whenever it comes. Don’t argue against it. It shows us as bad faith allies in conservation. Why throw us a bone? If we are just going to sell out habitat and wildlife for whatever industry has convinced us that anything is better than shared cause with environmentalist. Makes us look like we don’t deserve a spot at the conservation table.
Stache Attack
WKR
Are you saying fully raised on or that they never step foot on? More than 60% of the western US beef herd grazes public lands.
I am too closely involved to comment on apr activities and shell games, don’t want to get booted again for frustrating sponsors
IdahoBeav
WKR
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2017
- Messages
- 1,564
And what % of US beef production does that make up? Aside from the feedlots in California, I don't believe there is much beef in the West compared to TX, OK, KS, etc.
I know that ~ 3% of the total production is public land based, that’s a widely shown number by a lot of groups.
A lot of the west is relatively low production per acre, some areas over 100 acres per AUM.
I don’t know how blm in holdings play into those numbers either
My only major problem with ranchers centers around the public discourse and overly romanticized portrayal of them. Whenever in a debate regarding cattle and rangeland health with ranchers or proselytizing pro rancher people they go the “Clayton Mortenson” or other “good actor” rancher route with their argument.
However, whenever I agree with the practices of the good rancher and ask how I can help them make those practices the law and the norm they wane. They tend to use the positive exceptions only to excuse the damaging norm and not as a motivation and catalyst for real change. I always ask, “Is there a bill or policy I can call and make comments on? Is there any action I can do to make the good actor ranchers practice the minimum? Because it sounds great! You’re right. I love it! Let’s do it!” They always balk at that.
I’m not inherently anti-ranching but I have a hard time seeing the industry as a whole as good allies when they claim to have found a better way but refuse to make it the rule and not the exception.
Addition: Also, one’s views of ranchers is hugely dependent on the ecotype they run around and hunt in. I’ve been in areas where the grass is thick, the soil hardy, and cattle roam. If that’s where one lives and hunts they might see the cattle as just benefitting the land and in those areas they may be right. I’ve run around mostly in the arid high desert Great Basin. Where soils are loose, grass sparse, invasives primed, and water holes vulnerable to sedimentation and erosion. There is no plus side to the species there. I have seen completely nuked landscapes and completely destroyed creeks devoid of any fish life. Just from livestock damage. They can be the cure or the poison. I just see the latter more and the rangeland health studies in my area show that as the norm.
how would that frustrate sponsors? apparently i need to look up sponsor lists to see whose on it.
