Sequoia Decides to Fully Protect Resources

[AldeFarte]

Admin, I apologize and stand in corrected shoes! It wasn't meant as a castigation. More of a chiding. I had tunnel vision after I read the article and could not see the forest through the trees. jls

[caddis]

Aaaaaaaamen Steve! Tons of cows around Highland Lakes.
Save a tree, remove a "BUSH"!

Bush own them cows???

[caddis]

Good stuff Dave. I noticed slide 13 (the PDF files) had a picture of Bridgeport "Big Meadows"

Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth said in a speech "The worst managed ranch is still better wildlife habitat than the best subdivision."

I liked this line. Makes you think twice before you cut of your nose simply because you stepped in a cow pie.

[ERIC]

Admin, I apologize and stand in corrected shoes! It wasn't meant as a castigation. More of a chiding. I had tunnel vision after I read the article and could not see the forest through the trees. jls

No worries!

Eric

[caddis]

How did Nature ever survive without Cows for thousands of years?

Same way it survives now and will continue to survive. Of course it willl be different "looking" in the future just as it was different in the past. Change happens.

It would be a disgrace for a meadow to naturally progress to forest, as God and Nature intended.

It would not be a disgrace if it was left to turn to forest just as it is not a disgrace to manage it in a way that is beneficial. Mother Nature is a cruel beotch.(had to bypass the curse filter) To allow her to have her way would mean population explositions, followed by predator increases and habitat destruction and finally population crashes. What is wrong with stepping in to manage such natural cycles? (I know it's a tad off topic from trees). The bottom line is we are a part of the environment. With limited and often times dwindling resources (acreage) proper managemant for the benefit of all and for the future is the only sensible course

It' s all about money.

Not that there is anything wrong with money as a motivator...but maybe you should read some of what Dave posted. As to the money question....those making the profit NEED a healthy forrest to secure their income for the future...maybe they have the biggest stake in a healthy forrest .

[AldeFarte]

JM, it would be nice if we all realized that our lifetimes are but a blink of an eye in this big old world. Instead of thinking in terms of our lifetimes ,we should think in 1000 year cycles. We must manage our resources. Like it ,or not. Benign neglect is still management. Only it is not sound management. Just as allowing cattle to seasonally graze in SELECTED areas means more habitat for birds and other beasties of the wild country. To me it makes perfect sense. Just as allowing the private sector to cull cougars , sheep, wolves, deer, etc. will keep the rest of the population healthy. Heck, they will pay to do it ,instead of using precious guberment monies wrung out of hapless taxpayers. We all dig the sierras for what they are in our lifetime. I submit they are what they are today, because our greedy capitalist pig system has made it what it is. One way ,or another. I for one am appreciative of what we have, and why we have it. I agree with Dave and I agree with you on the drunkin hunter thing. Disgusting! Why would anyone want to ruin their buzz by getting drunk in Gods country?jls

[dave54]

In case some of you missed the news release.

The grazing fee for the western U.S. was just revised to $1.56 per AUM. Less than last year's $1.79 but still above the legal minimum of $1.35.

The fee is determined by a Congressional formula which includes, among other factors, private land grazing costs and current market prices for livestock.

[wingding]

thanks dave54

[Buck Forester]

I'm not anti-grazing by any means, but please, NOT in Wilderness Areas! There aren't too many things worse for me when backpacking a wild area to see a herd of cows! I'll never forget being in a very remote area of the Wind Rivers in WY, on day two of a 9-day trip, on a trailess ridge as I did an off-trail crossing to another wild basin, when I saw a large herd of cows up there, and one bull that was not happy to see me. Within minutes I saw a gorgeous herd of bighorns running across this ridge. I do NOT like cows in the wilderness. No sir reee. Not a bit. But regarding the "Bush" comment... I've hiked wild areas during both Repub and Dem administrations and have seen cows just the same. I don't blame cows on a President, even if I'm not fond of whoever is in office at the time. But the cows have got to go! Like Dave said, keep them in lower elevations and in less sensitive environments than our last remaining wild areas in the mountains.

[dave54]

Like Dave said, keep them in lower elevations and in less sensitive environments than our last remaining wild areas in the mountains.

I don't believe I said that. Although there is a credible argument for it.

Land so sensitive that even carefully controlled grazing would be of net negative impact is not restricted to a particular elevation zone. There are high elevation meadows that can be grazed with a net benefit to the environment and there are lower elevation sites that should not be grazed.

And some of the grazing permits are still held by the same families that has been grazing since before the National Forest system even existed.