Sequoia Decides to Fully Protect Resources

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
Posts: 1327
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.

Post by dave54 »

Buck Forester wrote:The notion that cows are "good" for the high wilderness surprises me. They aren't even natural there. They are good in a burger, but they aren't good for a fragile meadow. Are you guys being serious? That domestic cows are actually GOOD, as in BENEFICIAL, for the wilderness? I'll admit, that's a new one on me, and I thought I had pretty much heard it all!
In ecosystem management 'good' and 'bad' are human-defined ethnocentric terms. People make that distinction, nature is indifferent.

Livestock grazing can have benefits that outweigh the negatives, (from a purely human viewpoint), or vice versa. So does backpacking. The pluses and minuses are not all biological, either. Jack Thomas, the former Chief Forester for the Forest Service (and a scientist) said "The National Forests cannot be managed by science alone. All factors -- political, social, and economic, must be considered." That is a powerful statement from someone who spent most of his professional life as a research biologist.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
User avatar
Buck Forester
Founding Member
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:38 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Lincoln, CA (Sacramento area)
Contact:

Post by Buck Forester »

Yes, I would agree, "all factors must be considered" because there are many competing interests. But that doesn't mean all factors are "good". I mean, off-road vehicles sure are fun, but what they do to the environment in many cases is not pretty (I know, I have a 4-wheel drive truck and have done plenty of off-roading in my daze). But we need to accomodate places for off-roaders because it's their land too. But that doesn't make it "good" in terms of the environment. Same with ranching on public lands. Same with allowing mountain bikes in some areas and not others, and same with dogs in the wilderness, and same with backpackers and regulations. We all have to "consider" each other and have various places regulated to accomodate many competing interests. I have no problem with that concept, but that doesn't make it better for the ecosystem (or necessarily worse, it all depends). But some of us have different tolerances for different things. Me, for example, I cannot stand cows in designated Wilderness Areas, I think it's wrong on ALL levels. But Mr. Rancher disagrees with me. And apparently you do too. Which is fine. But I'll keep fighting against cows in the Wilderness and Mr. Rancher will keep fighting for them and we all hope for changes according to our way of thinking. Life is good®.
User avatar
AldeFarte
Topix Regular
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:46 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Eklutna, Ak.

Post by AldeFarte »

I don't want to see cattle in a high mtn. meadow either. It just don't totally ruin my buzz, thats all. I don't want to see fire in my favorite spots either. After 10 years, tho, things look better. And are usually healthier. I will agree that cattle do not belong everywhere. Kind of like that cute little froggie. He just can't live in peace with our lovely trout. jls :D
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests