New West Profile
The Guy Idaho Ranchers Love to Hate
Jon Marvel sees two ways to get cows and sheep to stop grazing on public lands: Politics and litigation. He chooses the latter.
By Dennis Higman, 10-14-10
There are two topics you don’t want to bring up with most Idaho ranchers: wolves and Jon Marvel, the white-haired, 63-year-old founder and executive director of the Western Watersheds Project.
Exactly what is it about this guy who looks more like a college professor than an environmental activist worthy of nstant, visceral, angry reactions from ranchers, that include “he’s an asshole” to “I hate that bastard” to “he’s an abusive guy” and other not-suitable-for-work quotations?
As it turns out, Marvel, a history graduate from the University of Chicago who founded WWP in 1993, is not at all mild-mannered unless it serves his purpose. In reality, he’s is an intense, combative man who does not believe in compromise. “You don’t influence change without directly taking on the people who oppose that change,” he says in a recent interview. “Collaboration simply gets you marginalized.”
He’s also a man who harbors a long-standing grudge with roots in an incident many, many years ago at his family cabin in Stanley, Idaho. “One day I found this rancher cutting across my land without permission, taking salt blocks to his stock. I told him to go around, go back the same way he came in and you know what he said? ‘Where did you come from?’ It was like he felt he was somehow entitled to use my private property as he saw fit.”
That initial contact led Marvel to take a closer look at what his ranching neighbors thought they were entitled to do on surrounding public land where they grazed their stock in the summer under longterm, subsidized leases (currently, it’s $1.35 for a cow or calf compared to $17 to $22 on private land). He was appalled by the activity supervised by the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the state. He saw it as the long-standing, irresponsible, wanton destruction of the land and its resources---fish, wildlife, plants and water---by cattle and sheep. He surmised this destruction was aided and abetted by complacent, complicit government agencies charged with regulation and oversight of grazing on millions of acres in the public interest.
That was a defining moment for him and the beginning of what became Western Watersheds Project---which is the second reason most Idaho ranchers hate Jon Marvel. Although the mission of WWP, headquartered in Hailey, is to “protect and restore western watersheds and wildlife through education, public policy initiatives and litigation,” its goal is to do this by getting domestic livestock off public land in the West. And while its methods certainly include some education and policy initiatives, the organization’s MO consists primarily of filing lawsuit after lawsuit, using every environmental law on the books, ranging from the Endangered Species Act to the Clean Water Act and the Federal Land Policy Management Act, among many others.
Jon Marvel, WWP staff and officials with the Forest Serveice survey cattle damage on Pine Creek in the Little Lost River Watershed. Photo by John Carter.
“Marvel’s nothing but a pot-smoking trust-funder who came out here from back East to change the world. He’s got millions of dollars behind him,” complains one angry Idaho rancher who wouldn’t allow his name to be printed. “If I say anything on the record, I’m just inviting one of his damn lawsuits and I can’t afford it, he said, continuing, “He’s not interested in improving the resource; he just wants people like me out of business. It’s hard enough to make any money in cattle these days.”
That kind of reaction does not displease Jon Marvel. Public lands in the West and livestock are not a viable combination and never have been, he says. It doesn’t make any sense economically or environmentally to use this arid land for grazing and he says he can prove it with reams of data and statistics: It’s too dry, harsh and fragile, only 3 percent of cattle are raised on public land anyway (most are raised on private land in East Texas and Florida), and ranching is, at best, a marginal economic activity in Idaho.
Half the ranchers who use public land for grazing are “hobbyists,” in Marvel’s view, who don’t depend on ranch income. Of the other half who do, half of those are “corporate ranchers,” he says.
“They know I’m right about this,” Marvel says. “If we weren’t getting to them, they’d brush us off like a fly. After all, we’re just a little organization with 14 or 15 people, but they act like what we do is the end of the world.”
Here, Marvel is being somewhat disingenuous. Western Watersheds has offices in nine Western states, a million-dollar budget and a formidable advisory board and staff of doctors (the academic type---botanists, biologists, ecologists), as well as an aggressive, highly effective team of public interest lawyers in Boise, Advocates for the West.
Typical is John Carter, a long-time board member and the director of WWP’s Utah Office until he recently resigned to spend more time developing his 900-acre wildlife and research preserve in southeast Idaho. Carter, a soft-spoken Southern farm boy with a degree in mechanical engineering, a Master’s in business administration and a Ph.D. in biology/ecology, started several successful engineering businesses and consulting firms involved in studies of watersheds, oil shale development and hazardous waste management before devoting his full time to authoring numerous scientific papers on range conditions in the West and becoming an expert witness for Western Watersheds.
“You know, people like to zero-in on Jon Marvel,” says Carter, whose accent and courtly manner mask a passionate, aggressive dedication to the cause, “but he’s not alone. There are a lot of highly qualified people all over the West, pushing for and dedicated to reform just like he is.
“What we’re up against is a broken, corrupt regulatory system,” Carter continues. “The environmental damage caused by livestock grazing on Western public land is irrefutable. This land needs more than a few years off. The fact is, it needs a century of rest!”
Idaho ranchers who graze livestock on public land during the summer most emphatically do not agree with any of this. “Jon Marvel’s an environmental obstructionist,” insists Carl Elsworth, Idaho Cattle Association (ICA) President. “His goal is not to help the environment or help local economies. He holds up good projects like improvement of salmon and bull trout habitat on technicalities because all he really wants to do is get cattle off public land.”
Charles Lyon, incoming ICA President, agrees. “There is no middle ground here, not as far I’m concerned. Marvel’s trying to nail us to a wall with all his lawsuits. He wants to put us out of business and we have to stand together.”
“These people (WWP) have never worked the ground a day in their life,” he says, “and if they get their way, a lot of struggling little rural communities are going to be hurt economically. There’s a good system in place, using public range in the summer and private land in the winter. You take away the public land, it will overload private land, damage its resources and a lot of small operators will get squeezed out.”
The Idaho Rangeland Resource Commission (IRRC), a state agency dedicated to providing “scientifically-based educational materials to Idaho teachers” and whose goals are, among others, “to promote public support for sustainable livestock grazing” and “responsible range stewardship,” declined to comment on Marvel and WWP, or suggest people who would.
“The IRRC works on positive stories and stays away from controversy as much as possible,” Executive Director Gretchen Hyde said in an e-mail, “and we don’t want to put anyone at risk of dealing with lawsuits (frivolous or not).”
The Forest Service, one of the primary regulatory agencies that oversee livestock grazing on public lands in Idaho and other Western States---and a constant target of Jon Marvel’s lawsuits and ire---is also gun shy. A local Idaho district ranger in that vast bureaucratic organization now needs permission from Washington, D.C., to talk to the press, and that permission was not forthcoming in time for this article.
It does pay to be wary of Marvel and the Western Watersheds Project, of course. Lawsuits to protect wolves, sage grouse, pigmy rabbits, bull trout and bighorn sheep have all been filed by WWP over the years, plus a host of other litigation, and they’ve won some significant victories.
Early on, Marvel tried to buy leases on state land in order to halt grazing on the theory that if he paid to have the land retired instead of grazed, the state was better off financially and environmentally. When his high bids were rebuffed, he took it to the Idaho Supreme Court and won. And when the State Land Board still refused to go along, he won a subsequent case in federal court using a civil rights law.
In 2005, WWP won a federal court injunction removing livestock from 800,000 acres of BLM-managed land in Idaho. And in 2007, WWP’s litigation strategy paid off in a big way when it was able to overturn Bush-era grazing regulations on 160 million acres of BLM land in 11 states.
They were also recently involved (with other parties) in a lawsuit that put wolves back on the Endangered Species list, at least temporarily, and won a case which stopped domestic sheep grazing on 65 percent of the Payette National Forest on the grounds they carried a disease that was killing Bighorn Sheep. WWP has also successfully forced the Washington State Department of Fish and Game to stop using two large tracts of its wildlife lands for cattle grazing.
Excluding revolution, there are basically two ways to initiate the kind of sweeping change Marvel is seeking: politics or litigation---and he has clearly opted for the latter. In a one-party state like Idaho, there’s little choice, he says. Lawsuits may not be the ultimate answer, Marvel concedes, but they are an effective way to focus public attention on an environmental problem, bring about change and, equally important, increase the cost of noncompliance for violators. “There just aren’t any significant examples of environmental laws being enforced without litigation or threat of litigation,” he says
More recently, however, Western Watersheds tried an alternate approach by making an agreement with the El Paso Corp. not to challenge its proposed pipeline from Wyoming to Oregon in exchange for a $15-million fund to be used for conservation easements, land purchases and a voluntary retirement of grazing permits. Ironically, a group of counties have challenged this agreement on the grounds it’s harmful to ranchers because, among other reasons, they will be pressured into selling their grazing rights by WWP lawsuits.
Not true, Marvel says: Ranchers will sell voluntarily because it’s in their best interest to sell. A WWP spokesman is quoted in the Idaho Statesman as saying it isn’t a coercive fund at all, but then goes on to note that WWP does go to court to enforce the nation’s environmental laws and “we’re holding the enforcement of existing laws over their head.”
The resistance of these county officials may be more a matter of culture than economics, John Freeman, senior fellow at the Andrus Center for Public Policy at Boise State, said in this same article. “Culture matters.”
By culture, he explained in a subsequent interview, he means a way of life and community values. This may help to explain why the angry reaction and resistance to Jon Marvel and the Western Watersheds program goes well beyond ranchers in many rural Idaho communities.
Marvel likes to talk about “the myth of the West,” the deeply ingrained glorification of cowboys and cows, noble, independent ranchers and echoes of “Home on the Range” that has obscured the destructive reality of this bogus culture for a century. “That myth is dying fast,” he claims. “Nobody makes Westerns any more. Young people today could care less. I know change is coming.”
And to bolster his point, he cites a survey that claims being a cowboy today is considered to be the worst job in the United States. The only two Idaho cowboys this reporter knows, however, apparently didn’t take part.
These are proud, independent, hard-working, self sufficient people who clearly love what they do, and when I complained to one about how hard it was to make a living these days, he replied there were plenty of jobs out there. Like what? I challenged him. “Like this one,” he laughed.
In the final analysis, it appears that the battle lines between Jon Marvel, Western Watersheds and the ranching community have been drawn. There is precious little room for compromise on the issues, and probably no room at all for politically bipartisan solutions on the land issues he champions.
Although Hailey, Idaho, where Marvel lives and works (and where Western Watersheds was just given the “Environmental Advocate of the Year” award by that city and the surrounding communities of Ketchum and Sun Valley), might be classified as a liberal community, Idaho remains a conservative Republican state. Ranchers retain a solid base of political power here and the current governor, a rancher himself, once boasted he would be the first in line to shoot a wolf when it became legal.
Nor is the national political outlook any more promising with the current Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar, who has authority over the regulatory agencies that oversee federal public lands, is also a rancher by profession. “I’m deeply disappointed in the Obama administration,” Marvel concedes.
“There’s no change in behavior from Bush; it’s all extremely negative. I expected more, a lot more. I foolishly believed it was going to be different, but all we got were Clinton retreads. Ken Salazar has closed the door on change of any kind; it’s more of the same, an accommodation of vested interests.”
That, and the fact that upcoming November elections will, in all likelihood, make it look even darker on Marvel’s horizon, almost guarantees there will be only more contentious lawsuits and animosity ahead. The real winners look to be only one group---lawyers---who surely must rank somewhere not far below the cowboys on Jon Marvel’s survey, among the least-admired of any profession.
[End of article]
Western Watersheds Project is one of the few environmental organizations making headway against the destruction of our public land by government-subsidized grazing. If any other American citizens released thousands of destructive non-native animals onto public land, they would be arrested. Our public lands should provide habitat for the native wildlife that belongs to all Americans, not money for cattle ranchers. Time to send WWP another few bucks.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-14-10Marvel's a guy on a mission but he has to stay heavily medicated for everyones protection. Buying out government grazing allotments gradually is probably the way to go with a little nudge from the courts. In the long run Bison and Wolves are better for the land and belong on the range more than cattle, sheep and ranchers.
Comment By Drifter, 10-14-10So this all started because he wanted his private property respected. Well the ESA does not respect private property, and neither does WWP.
Comment By Buffaloed, 10-14-10Well, ranchers sure don't give a crap about private property rights. Just look at what is happening on Horse Butte near West Yellowstone where landowners have repeated trespass by Montana Department of Livestock personnel who are hazing buffalo.
Look at the open range law which require landowners to fence their own property to keep trespassing livestock off of their property. Those same laws ascribe liability to the person who hits a black cow on the highway in the middle of the night.
The rancher's war on wildlife and habitat needs to stop.
I'm proud to work for Jon Marvel and his wonderful band of professional environmental warriors. I tried to work for positive change from within the systems of Western states and Federal government and their tangle of environmental regulations for many decades.
It doesn't work because politics trumps science... and that's why lawyers were created.
Long live Jon Marvel, long live Western Watersheds Project.
Larry Z, Salmon, Idaho
P.S. that's $1.35 per month for a cow-calf PAIR, where the "calf" is sometimes several hundred pounds, eating grass and native forbes, trampling stream banks, and polluting public streams, just like its parents.
How long has this Buffalo trying to escape YNP and enterfering with livestock growers been going on, 16 years or less ?
Jon Marvel only represents another repeat of mans struggle against mans oppression, one side wants to live and let live the other side wants to fued, Marvel is on the side of the fued, it boils down to the sacrifice of the few for the greater good of the many. In this case his battle cry is the "Public" lands. Fueds have always led to strife, suffering, misery, the punishing of the weak by the strong, wars and death, Marvel is nothing more than another tyrant. One mans paradise is another mans hell. Marvel and his lackeys want to force their version of paradise upon others. It's progress to return to the past, these people think they can undo what man has done, their wrong, they'll never make it. It'll blow into utter chaos and civil unrest before it does and then all lose including the Marvel's of unfolding history. It is very funny that a trespasser supposedly set this off, I call BS. I know of two times Marvel has trespassed and was asked to leave. This is about greenbacks in Jons purse. I say let the IRS audit him and let the truth fall where it may.
The author misses an important with his conclusion that the only winner is lawyers. Every law suit that Marvel and WWP wins means less livestock impacts on the land--which means the public and the land both win.
Comment By JEFF E, 10-14-10"Collaboration simply gets you marginalized"
how true.
"Collaboration simply gets you marginalized" And both sides are getting it, this means all out war to the bitter end until finally one side forces it's will upon another.
Comment By treec123, 10-14-10Every outdoorsman (and woman) who has had a wonderful day on the public land ruined by private livestock and the mess they make of streams and meadows and habitat understands that Jon Marvel is doing great work for a great cause. Keep it up!
Comment By The_Boneshackler, 10-14-10It is time to end welfare ranching on Public Land.
Comment By Todd, 10-14-10Ol Jon saw a way to jump on the gravy train of reaping taxpayer dollars. I'm sure it is no accident he jumped in when the wolf introduction became an working plan. How many of our tax dollars has he stolen legally and what has he himself done except force others to do his will?
Comment By Drifter, 10-14-10Well speaking for Idaho's forests in order to have a cow crappy day, or sheep shit hike, one must be a darn poor planner, because Idaho has 3,961,709 acres of National Forest Wilderness, National Wild and Scenic River areas totaling 159,586 acres, National Recreation areas totaling 866,213 acres, that totals 4,987,508 acres for special designations. And other National forest system lands total 20,416,286 acres. And you and your WWP free riders slurping up tax payer monies for your cause are sniveling over less than 1.8 million acres of lease options used by the ranching community, which is a combination of National Forest and BLM lands, most of it connected to private lands.
Time for Marvel and his minions to go away. Time to cut their strings.
Dear author,
The biggest winner of all is water and everything non-bovine that depends on water for survival in this arid western landscape. The author somehow wants this to be about a popularity contest. It's not, it's really about survival of everything that lives and breathes, including humans.
It is really funny to watch the recreationists who feel entitled to have the taxpayer subsidize their playing also insisting that those same taxpayers can pay more for their beef by eliminating grazing or raising the fees to the point no more beef can be raised and the ranches sold to developers or for trophy ranches. Of course we know the developers/new residents or trophy ranch owners will welcome the hikers leaving their waste behind on their land...NOT. Cut your own throats with your greed guys. Unfortunately the rest of us will pay too with higher prices for beef.
Comment By John, 10-14-10Todd or should I say Marion Dickinson, why do you pretend to be a man and why not post under your real name?
Comment By bigsky, 10-14-10Problem with most of these posts (and John Marvel) is the fact that PEOPLE now live in these areas. If their is a problem with cattle, then move them. Don't graze as long, use stratagies to keep cows out of streams etc. Raise the grazing fees, whatever. The whole idea of just busting the cattle off of range and not using the land for anything productive is ridiculous. Drifter stated the facts. Do you want your entire state to be a wildlife sanctuary? What John Marvel represents is the loss of alot of income for alot of people. Those people pay the taxes that run the schools, build highways, etc. Backpackers and naturalists pay nothing. Western Watersheds is nothing more than kist another organization to swindle money out of good hearted people. What of John Carter? A man who made his money in industry and now want to champion taking jobs away from other people? Another farse.
Comment By Angela, 10-14-10@Todd "Ol Jon saw a way to jump on the gravy train of reaping taxpayer dollars. I'm sure it is no accident he jumped in when the wolf introduction became an working plan. How many of our tax dollars has he stolen legally and what has he himself done except force others to do his will?"
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. It is subsidized grazing that robs taxpayers by destroying the value of their public lands and compromising wildlife and plant communities through a variety of means (loss of riparian veg, predator control, reducing veg otherwise available to other ungulates, introduction of invasive plants, fouling of streams and cutting of stream banks, etc.). Making money is not the OBJECT of WWP or their supporters; conservation of public resources for the benefit of current and future generations is. It is the cattle that reduce the value of these lands for American citizens, sometimes in perpetuity, and ranchers that directly benefit financially, sometimes through both direct and indirect government subsidies. Getting the cattle off does not mean reducing the land's value for humans or instant development or loss of jobs. This is a straw man argument. Yes, lawyers will make money. That is because politicians aren't willing to risk losing the support of the powerful ranching/ag interests. The only way the laws are enforced is by bringing the matter to the courts.
So John, is that your first name, middle name, nickname, last name? Exactly what is the hang up on full names, especially on my name and sex are you & JeffE planning to attack someone to teach them a lesson? Are you hoping to find an easy target?
Comment By Demarcated Landscapes, 10-14-10"The whole idea of just busting the cattle off of range and not using the land for anything productive is ridiculous." The idea that the land has to be productive economically is what's ridiculous. But, even argued on those terms, the land is working hard for human benefit: cleaning our air, cleaning our water, providing corridors for pollinators and other 'valuable' wildlife, sequestering CO2... all of which are detrimentally impacted by livestock grazing. So, BigSky, it is perhaps true that some people wouldn't be able to make money being ranchers anymore, but the benefits of removing livestock from these areas would extend to a much broader demographic of people who like clean air, clean water, hunting, fishing, etc. Moreover, Jon Marvel has consistently supported paying livestock operators to get out of the business. This would compensate for the "loss of alot [sic] of income for alot [sic] of people." In fact, this kind of compensatory mechanism could create new jobs, more sustainable and diverse jobs that reflect the changing West. Buy-outs could be win-win if the cowboys would stop opposing them on principle rather than using common sense.
Comment By JEFF E, 10-14-10http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/fs_fiscal_costs.htm
It costs the taxpayers millions upon millions more to sbsidize welfare ranching than it will ever bring in. this is on top of the taxes that are spicificly designated to administert public lands.
This has beenpointed out to you ad nausem Marion but you continue to spew your same old hate and mis-information.
In addtion please tell me why a welfare rancher in wyoming should have a government subsidized advantage over a rancher from say Iowa that has to pay private grazing fees? And don't give me the old BS about local. when you or I step into the grocery store you don't know where that steak originate any more than I. (i concede it may be different for you living in greybull. your market my well be just local. That however is not true for 99+% of the rest of the nation however).
Wow, I knew this would bring the cow haters up....
You think Marvel, and that packaging dude in Seattle that helps bankroll his garbage, will have a dark horizon in November? Hah....just wait until Congress starts changing the law. Maybe not right away, but soon. Hopefully soon enough.
I disagree completely, Demarcated Landscapes. You cannot take the the only (or just about) industry out of the equation and expect things to be the same. You obviously have your mind made up, and don't even understand the economics involved here. I love the "subsidy bandwagon" that you and your type beat on the drum. Yes, many use the subsidies now, and why not? They are given to them. Higher grazing fees are a possibility, but what you suggest is not in the realm of realism. The land should be used for people, and all people can benefit from it. PUBLIC land does not mean people like you get to use it for your exclusive domain. Your quote "that some people wouldn't be able to make money being ranchers anymore, but the benefits of removing livestock from these areas would extend to a much broader demographic of people who like clean air, clean water, hunting, fishing, etc. These people contribute very little to the care of the land. At least the cattle producers pay a fee. Do you? More of the "save the world" jargon just as long as it does not affect your pocketbook or way of life. More selfishness from the out of staters. Jeffy, I looked that site up. Not a good reason to run every outfit off of public land. If you don't like the subsidies, vote for someone who will vote them out. I am betting that about 100% of the anticattle people blogging on here either work for a nonprofit, have a government job, or are jobless. Typical.
Comment By Nancy, 10-14-10+These people contribute very little to the care of the land+
Oh really BS? Do you actually think ranchers are the only ones who care about and pay for the use of public lands???????? Give me a fricken break! WE ALL PAY for public lands in our taxes and WE ALL have a say when it comes to how that land is managed or........... mis-managed.
bigsky,
That is one site out of many, including the GAO where the same information can be found. It costs every taxpayer in this country, from Guam to the virgin islands, Millions upon millions of dollars, ongoing, to subsidize the wests welfare ranchers.
But to listen to individuals such as Marion all those people should not have even a whisper of a voice because they "don't live here", just give us your money and shut up.
not one cow worshipper has ever answered this one question.
Why should a public lands subsidized livestock producer have that government backed competitive advantage over producers in another area that has no choice but to pay private lands grazing fees?
Anyone that knows anything about the industry knows that beef is shipped all around the country. There is virtually no such thing as "local" when talking about the food industry.
So this article is journalism?
Let's see, throw in some conflict - our readers need drama! Anonymous slurs - protect my identity so I can slander the guy will ya please? Note to editors: if people are not willing to own up to what they say, why the hell give them anonymity and print it?
News reporting? New West? Looks like the same old crappy journalism to me.
No amount of logic is going to persuade those who feel they are entitled to exclusive use of the land for free, and they are entitled to keep anyone they dislike from using it. Their selfishness has convinced them that no one else should use the land, but they should support it so they have a place to play.
By the way I doubt JeffE and John have lived as long combined as Todd has been my name.
With the Federal Reserve Bank Act, the United States Congress gave up their power to coin (not print) money---(an illegal act). Federal Reserve Notes were created to resemble legal tender---What, you thought they were legal tender ? Guess again ! Congress, it seems, forgot to take care of that little detail. Your FRNs are not legal tender, they are fiat paper and ink insurance script. FACT ! So this means this entire Federal Reserve banking system and their insurance script are nothing but credit debt notes, borrowed by congress to dole out to the people of this nation and every one has been pretending it is money when it is not. FACT again. This type of crime is far more damaging to the country, and your so-called tax paying community than any cow man operation ever dreamed of being. Since Federal Reserve Notes turn out to be nothing more than worthless insurance script the significance of that fact means you cannot " own '' insurance script. Thus you can purchase items with it only on behalf of the real owner in this case the Federal Reserve Bank system. Remember them ? They loaned that funny stuff to your congress and those congressmen gave the Fed some collateral. Your resources. So the bottom line is all of you are on the subsistance dole system using debt notes backed by nothing at all, thin air, once this fakery goes down completely you'll be wondering where your next meal comes from not some damn cowboys cow out on some range land you only think you own. The elite bankers thought up this environmentalist nonsense and they have used dupes among us to lock up our own resources into this hands off mentality. Jon Marvel is one of those dupes, and anybody believing in him. Both sides of this debate have been tricked by the same side opposing you both. They have divided you, I find it fascinating when one of you crys out that the other side is spewing hate. ha ha. How cute that is. And further more before I drift on out of here, I'll point out a couple more facts, FRNS are not taxable by the various state taxing agencies. The Chief Counsel for the United States Treasury Department admits that fact. Further more if Federal Reserve Notes are only worthless paper and ink insurance script, which they in fact are, don't any of you recognize hyper inflation when you see it ? Those notes cannot be used to pay license fees or taxes imposed of any kind, There is and axiom of law that says, " If there is no remedy, there can be no crime." So since the Gov stopped backing this paper ponzi scheme with gold bullion this means all of the license fees and fines or taxes imposed on the American people since that time have been illegal. Naturally it would benefit these con men greatly if many of us some day starved to death, foreclosure would then be a helluva lot nicer on their profits margins. But keep on blaming the people who feed you. You are a subsistance society and you punishing your fellow countrymen for doing exactly what you are guilty of doing. Using funny money from con artists to live on at the detrement to your country as a whole. I find you all guilty, not just some Rancher. Of course this is all the truth, and the evidence to support the comment is massive, unfortunately the mass society is going to learn it the hard way. Marvel and company are not winning anything, their losing it with the rest of us, only difference is their helping to lose it more than the rest of us are. NOW GET THEM COWS OFF THE BANKS LANDS PRONTO ! ha ha.
Comment By J Henry, 10-15-10Larry Zuckerman, how much money will you, Brian Ertz, or any other WWP so called employee, receive as compensation from the $20 Million dollars that WWP EXTORTED from El Paso?
Western Watersheds, is nothing more than a legalized, tax free, extortion ring. Give me money, or I'll sue! America, what a country!
Todd, why do you post under a phony name and pretend you are a male when you are a female Marion Dickinson?
Comment By Shamus McQuade, 10-15-10While I understand Mr. Marvels frustration in the beginning I believe it has now become a spiteful obsession on his part to allow his EGO to run rough shod over other people. While I do not know who is right and wrong here, there is clearly a better way to compromise. The statement “Collaboration simply gets you marginalized.” Is exactly what Washington under B Hussein Obama is doing. Shoving down the throats of other Americans a Socialistic agenda without due process. This same attitude is what is going to get Mr. Marvel into more confrontation which is exactly what you don’t want when you are trying to find middle ground. Middle ground is what is all about in negotiations and compromise is the end result. Using Mr. Marvels approach does not seek middle ground or compromise but for his own self aggrandizement and ego. In the end he is nowhere further than he started and has now marginalized other people who do not subscribe to his doctrine or philosophy. His organization mission statement does not match his deep rooted resentment and getting even attitude. I believe the organization should exist BUT with someone who has the right attitude and diplomacy skills to solve the problems the WWP seeks to solve
Comment By Todd's real name is Marion Dickinson and he is a s, 10-15-10Yep!
Comment By Angela, 10-15-10I see this conversation has veered from an adult discussion of facts into the twilight zone of conspiracy theories and bizarre accusations. Oh, and bigsky, you bet 100% wrong. I work for a private business.
Comment By Ruffian, 10-15-10The man is absolutely "Marvelous". He's not alone in his thoughts.
Personally, I hate, and I do mean hate, Ken Salazar, DOI, and Bob Abbey, BLM. Between the DOI, BLM and USDA, we, the people, are allowing the desecration of our lands and decimation of our wildlife populations, in particular, wild horses, wolves and Yellowstone bison.
I too, thought Washington would change but I now realize Obama was a mistake, at least as far as the West is concerned.
I would bet my bottom dollar that Obama didn't know what the BLM was before he got to Washington and I'm sure his interest was not in the DOI, BLM or USDA, when he arrived. After being elected President his priorities did not include the DOI and/or USDA - a war was being fought. It was easy to supply him with names for key positions, however, not everyone selected was qualified to head up an agency i.e. Salazar - referred to as "one of the Good Ole Western Boys" - perhaps, good for a few but not all. Whatever happens, wherever it happens, it all goes back to "who does what, to who, for how much" and, it’s “We The People”, who are getting shafted.
This country needs more Jon Marvel's and The WWP.
J Henry and his (or her) ilk: Zero. Can you believe it?? Someone actually trying to do something for altruistic reasons??? It is very revealing to me how the greedy welfare ranching crowd always have to presume that people like Jon and lawyers like myself are in it for the money. As for Jon, he was a very successful architect, and works his ass off for a pittance now because he believes in making things better and he cares (is compassion in your vocabulary?) about wild things. As for myself, currently in bankruptcy and foreclosure, yeah you bet -- I'm in it for the money! I could care less about your materialistic values. The commodification of nature is what is killing all life on the planet, slowly but surely. Do you really believe that public interest lawyers make more money than the corporate lawyers representing the ranching and other resource extraction industry? If so, then I must presume you are probably making minimum wage flipping burgers, because you do not have a clue how things work in the world. Believe it or not, for some of us there are more important things than money, cell phones, televisions, and meat rotting in our guts. Some of us actually make decisions based on values, ideals, and principles, rather than the almighty dollar. I took a huge pay cut to work for WWP the day they decided to open a Montana office, because I knew this was the best hope for one day seeing bison on the landscape again. Some of you people really need a religion other than materialism or killing shit or watching people knock the snot out of each other or be cruel to animals or drive cars in circles. Seriously.
Comment By Carolyn, 10-15-101. I have friends who are ranchers who respect the land and are working toward conservation of riparian areas. They "get it" how important clean water is to the environment of the entire planet.
2. There are ranchers who are afraid that their way of life is going away and act out of fear--not hate--fear. Instead of thinking about the whole picture they hunker down and use name-calling as a shield. Let's get open and honest communication on the table.
3. Collaboration is not always about some one losing, but can be perceived that way. Walking away from collaborating isn't always the best answer, but I can understand how someone could feel that way.
4. Until everyone in every issue around the planet "gets it' that every thing and every one is connected and what one person does in his decisions about land and animal use or abuse is going to affect all of us and every living, breathing organism, then we will all continue to be at the mercy of the abusers. This is true of anyone who is a misogynist, an abuser of animals, land, water, etc.
5. If we are not willing to figure out what is best for the planet then we will all be worse off in every way.
6. I applalud Jon Marvel's efforts. Acting out of anger, however, if that is his case, does not always get the best results. Your enemies will use your anger against you. Think about martial arts. The winner is never the angry person.
I will always take a stand for a situation where all parts of the issue is looked at and considered. Economics, politics, religion, perceptions, all play a part in almost everything we do. Water, wildlife, air quality, and how we are all going to make a living all have to be considered.
While some may scoff at the idea that we are part of a web of life, forget this at your peril.
Hi there,
I enjoyed the opportunity to learn more about Jon Marvel, but I have to say, quoting rumors from people who won't put their names on the record isn't my idea of good journalism. And the conclusion that the "only winners are the lawyers?!" Terrible! I learned in civics class in the 5th grade that the judicial branch was a crucial check and balance in our democracy. It seems like a better way of working things out than chopping heads off, or torturing political opponents in political prisons in other versions of government. So I thank my lucky stars that when we have conflicts (which are inevitable), we work them out with lawyers and judges instead. This is one of the things about the United States that I am most proud.
Damn Woodman, I guess you shoulda bought gold bullion a long time ago. Ya know feller some of them circle jerk drivers get a mighty handsome pay check, are they stupid or are the watchers stupid, can you clarify for me ? By the way bub, the rancher, farmer, hunter is not killing all life on the planet, that be the governments doing friend, 51% of all taxes goes to the military Industrial Complex. Those be zucchini pancakes rotting in the guts today Woody..
Comment By The Scarlet Pimpernel, 10-15-10What's being left out of this equation is what the actual "pristine" condition of the land is, and it's not what you think. It's most definitely not the picture most people have today.
Grasslands and forests, including riverbanks, evolved to be grazed. The lush stands of brush and dense forestation seen in today's public lands are not natural, but rather are a result of forest fires being controlled (no more Mother Nature's Brush Clearance) and the end of the megaherds of bison. But these grasslands and forests and riverbanks still need to be grazed (and in the case of forests, logged), or they soon get taken over by invasive weeds and an unhealthy overgrowth of native species.
It does not matter if the grazing is done by bison or by cattle or by elk, but it NEEDS to be done, for the health of the land. Cattle are easiest to manage and most reliable for meat production, otherwise there's no reason we couldn't run an equal number of bison on the same land to do the same job.
The natural grazing pattern (which research shows is also best for the land) is to graze it down hard, then swiftly move on. This is the same pattern used by modern stockmen.
Does this lead to a certain amount of streambank erosion? Of course. That's also part of the natural equation. Watersheds are not static; they normally erode with the spring runoff, fill in with algae and/or sediment, and get recreated somewhere else. The notion that they stay put forever is an urbanite's misconception.
WWP should be the "non profit" taxpayers hate. see this article.
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/environmental-lawsuits-rake-billions-lawyers
“We tried to track the fees paid to environmental groups in certain federal courts. These guys are charging between $350 and $450 an hour in legal fees.” Falen says the Federal government is picking up the tab and adds: “In Federal District Court in Boise, over the last ten years, WWP received a total of $999,190 in tax dollars for ‘reimbursement’ for attorney fees and costs.”
And this
http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/summer-10/su10-range-green_scam.pdf
I "Marvel" at your reporting job here. Very well done.
Comment By Todd, 10-15-10Here's a waker upper for you that I cam across trying to find the 990s filed by Marvel. Look at the banner across the top and see hwo much they are worth and how much they take in. Remember the rest of us pay our taxes and theirs too so they can remain tax free. Wouldn't it be nice to have millions in assets and pay no property or other taxes.
Comment By Slowpie, 10-15-10I applaud the work that Jon Marvel and WWP are doing and have from the beginning. If the federal agencies charged with managing our public lands were allowed to do their jobs properly and actually enforced the laws as they stand, WWP might not be necessary. But they aren't (or don't) and WWP is VERY important. BTW, ruffian, wild horses are not native wildlife and compete with native species like mule deer and desert bighorns for scarce resources.
Comment By ben, 10-15-10You realize that they only collect the fees if they win, don't you? In other words, if the Gov't would quit screwing up, WWP wouldn't collect a dime.
Comment By bigsky, 10-15-10Grass needs to be grazed. If not, your "natural cycles" won't happen. Unless of course you really like fire. John Marvel is nothing more than a environmental nazi who found a way to make alot of cash in a hurry. Nancy, you don't pay a dime to walk across that land. Your taxes? You don't think the ol grazer pays taxes? He pays the same as you (probably more, he is at least employed) and pays a grazing fee to boot! Jeffy, we are not going to close land to grazing so you can feel better about yourself. All of Florida or Texas in not grazed with a fee, many people actually OWN land there. No fee, Jeffy. Apparently those paying the fees are still in business? Keep in mind that you can put alot more cows on land in Florida than you can up here (they have more rain.....the grass grows better) If we need a higher fee structure, so be it, but kicking people off the land so people like you can feel better about yourselves is ridiculous.....The land is there for people to use, and if abuse is occurring, then something needs to be changed. End of story.
Comment By bigsky, 10-15-10Wow Todd, I read that link
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/environmental-lawsuits-rake-billions-lawyers. And these people are crying about welfare grazing? This is a crime.....
Marvel and his posse are folk heros of the west..and I can hear..LOL ..that it really gets under the skin of the rest of you..Thats your problem, you cannot understand the benifit of anything that does not drop some coin directly into your jeans..The fact is..most of us who ranch, own our own places, we put alot of time and effort into protecting our land because we do own it..Now I have to say I know some younger generation, progressives, who are great stewards of public lands and I know many others who are not..and if you are being a good steward-you have nothing to fear from Marvel..I did a little computing-and a steak from a cow raised on public lands would cost you around 5,000 dollars. for a family of 6 tonite it would cost 30,000..So enjoy your hamburgers tonite..you could have sent your kid to college instead.
Comment By Mal Adapted, 10-16-10bigsky: "Grass needs to be grazed. If not, your 'natural cycles' won't happen. Unless of course you really like fire. "
You apparently think grassland ecosystems evolved over millions of years just so you can make a buck. After reading your comment, I gave $100 to WWP, because it's clear why their approach is the only one that will work, in the short term at least, against an attitude of entitlement like yours.
I like fire on grassland just fine, and native grazers like elk, bighorn sheep and bison too, plus wolves and all the other native plants and animals whose habitat is degraded by your cows. America's public lands belong to me and every other American, not just to the few who exploit them for private gain. In my personal utility-maximization equation, the highest and best use of those lands is to protect native species by preserving their habitat. Your cows are hurting, not helping. I want 'em off my land!
And I want you off of my land Mal.
Comment By Drifter, 10-16-10William Denevan. 1992. The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the American Association of Geographers v. 82 n. 3 (Sept. 1992), pp. 369-385.
http://westinstenv.org/histwl/2008/06/07/the-pristine-myth-the-landscape-of-the-americas-in-1492/
Historical writings prove it is evident that many early day expeditions, even though far off the beaten track, failed to find the mythical virgin range of luscious grass that we have been led to believe existed. This early day picture of perfect range conditions, drawn by theories with vivid imaginations, completely ignores the fact that buffaloes and antelopes by the millions (the great buffalo herd has been estimated as high as 30,000,000 head) roamed the plains at will, that devastating prairie fires were frequent and at certain times of the year would burn down into the roots and destroy grass, particularly in the lighter soils, and that the water development was far from what it is today.
The report of Rev. Samuel Parker, 1836, dealing with conditions on the Oregon Trail between Fort Laramie and what is now Douglas, Wyoming states, " We found very little grass for our horses and mules, owing to three causes, the sterility of the soil, the proximity of the mountains, and the grazing of numerous buffalo and antelope."
Father P.J. DeSmet's account, 1841 and 1842, describes conditions in the region of the Snake and Yellowstone rivers, as follows, " Our beasts of burden were compelled to fast and pine, for scarcely a mouth full of grass could be found.....A journey so long and continuous through regions where the drought had been so great that every sign of vegetation had disappeared, had very much exhausted our poor horses..
It has been the common assumption of so-called experts that the range prior to occupancy by the white man was in perfect condition.
Senate Document 199, generally recognized as the bid of the Forest Service for control of all the grazing lands under government
supervision, uses as its base for comparison 100 per cent as representing virgin condition such as is found along railroad right-of ways,
fence corners, cemeteries, etc. The practical stockman at once inquires: Of what benefit is a country in a non-use condition'? Was not
the grass grown intended to be used and useful rather than to be allowed to mature to the 100 per cent non-use condition referred to
above, and was this condition properly pictured? And he resents the implication that he has depleted the range to the extent that its present
condition is estimated to be below a non-use condition in carrying capacity. instead, he contends, and we offer much evidence to support his
claims, that in many instances carrying capacity today exceeds that of the early days referred to, although there have been substantial changes
in types of grass, coarse rank grasses of an early day being replaced with shorter and more nutritious types. Further more, as one digs into the record of the past it becomes clear that the conditions in the days before the plains were populated by domestic live stock were by no means as perfect as now pictured...
WWP are a pack of Charlatans...
Drifter,
The grasslands of North American are millions of years old. The first humans arrived at most a few tens of thousands of years ago. In any case, just because they had their impact on the landscape, doesn't mean I should be happy with the ongoing destruction caused by public-lands grazing. Try again.
Mal
"LOL: And I want you off of my land Mal.:
So sue me. If you think your case is strong enough, that is. Your side hasn't been doing so well in the courts lately.
Mal
In other words you want everyone else off of your land and my land?
Comment By Mike, 10-16-10Thank you Western Watersheds Project. You guys do a fantastic job.
It's always harder to do the right thing, and that's exactly what you are doing.
"LOL: In other words you want everyone else off of your land and my land?"
Nah, just cows. To the extent the law provides. That's why WWP is winning lawsuits, after all -- they're just getting existing laws enforced. Is that a problem for you?
Mal
" The grasslands of North American are millions of years old. "
And who kept those records during those years which supports this theory ? Knuckle Dragging Apes I presume..
Could you direct us to the law forbidding cows?
I don't even have a cow, but I hate selfishness, which is what is happening, too many want everything but the bill for just them.
Drifter: "And who kept those records during those years which supports this theory ? Knuckle Dragging Apes I presume.."
Ashamed of your knuckle-dragging ancestors? Or are you a creationist? Who kept records before the arrival of Europeans in North America?
It doesn't matter whether you accept my arguments or not. WWP is winning cases because the law is on our side. Why are you arguing with me? Tell it to the judge. Better yet, write to your legislators. I know I am.
Mal
@Drifter "And who kept those records during those years which supports this theory ? Knuckle Dragging Apes I presume.."
pollen cores and the fossil record
http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/wildamerica/grasslands/graslandoutline.html
WWP and other enviro groups are winning rigged cases which the government wants to lose thus changing their policy by giving off the appearance they were forced to change by the people, using the kangaroo courts to legislate from.
Lets stick to the self evident facts. The bottom line is that historical based theories about the supposed evolution of the universe and solar system are based on unobserved events that (supposedly) happened over vast spans of time - ensuring there was never any observers.
As such, all historically based theory ( cosmology included) is based on subjective "presuppositions", "inferences", "conjecture", "interpretations", "explanations" and rampant "speculations". And that is why cosmology is in a state of crisis from an evolutionary perspective. I could quote chapters and verse for those scientists pushing their evolutionary models based on their opinionated sciences, and astronomers who wish to continue living in a state of widespread denial, I call them professional cherry pickers, like the Maughan board.
The reality is that the Big Bang model has real problems, and while the vast majority of astronomers continue to support the big bang model, history has repeatedly shown that the majority often turn out to be wrong. And that scientists are all to often prone to resort to "scientism by mob rule " to protect the entrenched mob mindset, as Discovery magazine has resolved to do, in spite of its utter inability to do so.
The reality is that most science magazines now operate on the principle of denial. They are incapable of admitting that naturalism and raw materialism goes nowhere near explaining the broader realities of life and the universe. And in attempting to do so most science publications now major in unverifiable science fiction ( i.e.. string and M-theory etc. etc. etc) rather than real empirical based science.
Lets be honest. Science starts with "beliefs" (a hypothesis ), and operates on the unsustainable "beliefs" of philosophical naturalism and raw materialism. The "belief" of philosophical naturalism and materialism on which science operates is unsustainable. ( one would need to BE God in order to establish that God does not exist, and cannot exist, and was not involved). All the worlds scientists put together could not even remotely establish that material process alone can, and did, bring everything into existence. For while natural law and material processes are appointed as the atheistic gatekeeper for what is deemed to be science, natural law itself has no naturalistic explanation.
And so we have the loopy logic where something that cannot be explained by natural law, natural law itself, is use to keep all other unexplained realities out of science, particularly God. This is like appointing an unexplained alien to guard planet earth against all other unexplained aliens. Moreover, science finishes on unverifiable theoretical "beliefs". A reality even Jon Marvel and his defenders should have long ago realized.
Thus, all of science is ultimately "belief" based. For while matter, energy, mathematics, and natural law are integral to science, no scientist actually knows what energy and matter ultimately are. Nor do all the scientists combined know where the underlying mathematical structure of the universe came from; nor the cosmological constants; nor the laws of nature; nor even the universe itself. All they have is unverifiable "beliefs", and those who assert that they have some grand 'divine evolutionary insight' into how the universe came into being, and how it was formed, need a reality check. The fact is no one was there to see it, and neither was I.
So spare us your subjectively based unverifiable evolutionary theoretical dogma, and try thinking beyond the narrow and unrealistic confines of philosophical naturalism, which in ultimate terms is incapable of providing verifiable answers to anything, in spite of the heated assertions to the contrary. And another thing! The inquisitional styled tactics and personal vilification of those Creationists, and land users who actually think beyond the materialist box is becoming utterly ineffective and boring.
All you Marvelites are is a bunch of witch doctors, priests, from another tribe beating your war drums and hating on another tribe. You clowns will never fix this earths ills, it shall be the Creator who does this, as he has said, " I will put to ruin those ruining the earth". It is not the herders doing that ! If you Marvelite followers want to pile us up onto your inquisitional fire wood pile and burn us while chanting to your dogmatic tyranny, well best of luck to you.
Drifter,
One more time: tell it to the judge!
Mal
Mal,
Is the Judge Roman Catholic ? Masonic ? Athiest ? Why would you rely on or trust his interpretation of anything ? Are judges the new science gods ? You love to resort to force don't you Mal ?
Fossil magnetism reveals rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field
http://creation.com/fossil-magnetism-reveals-rapid-reversals-of-the-earth-s-magnetic-field
The Earth’s magnetic field and the age of the Earth
http://creation.com/the-earth-s-magnetic-field-and-the-age-of-the-earth
The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young
http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young
Creation in the physics lab
An illuminating interview with physicist Dr D. Russell Humphreys
http://creation.com/creation-in-the-physics-lab-creation-magazine-russell-humphreys
I see none of the cow worshippers have tried to answer my question of `10-14.
Marion, BS??
jeffe, why should anyone reply to a "man" that hides his own identity while trying to convince some kook to go attack an old woman 5 ft tall?
Comment By JEFF E, 10-17-10nice try Marion. Your typical hate and venom filled answer to deflect the issue.
Now answer the question. why should the west's welfare ranchers get a government backed competitive advantage over livestock producers elsewhere?
Drifter, legal decisions regarding grazing on public lands are made using science and reason rather than what people believe God tells them. But I could be missing whatever point you are trying to make in your bizarre and rambling comment.
Comment By Drifter, 10-17-10Angela and mal brought up the evolution theory. The sciences being used are based on evolutionary theory. Theory is not fact ! Thus courts making legal decisions based in theoretical sciences and opinions are bad decisions, not scientific, nor legal while hiding under color of law.
Comment By JEFF E, 10-17-10meanwhile back at the ranch, from GAO reports,
The grazing permits and leases the 10 federal agencies manage generated a
total of about $21 million from fees charged in fiscal year 2004—or less
than one-sixth of the expenditures to manage grazing.
So contrary to Marions of repeated lie, rachers grazing publiclands barely pay 1/6 th of there way. The rest of us pay the rest to the tune of ~144 million a year after year after year after year.......
Who is stealing the 144 million annually, the government ? Or the Ranchers ? Because there is no way in hell the government is spending it where their claiming they are. Where has it really been going Jeff ?
Comment By Angela Percival, 10-17-10Drifter, like many non-scientists, you misunderstand the difference between facts and theories. Facts are essentially data or evidence; theories are the structure of ideas that explain and interpret the facts. Evolution itself is a fact. There is overwhelming physical evidence for its existence, both molecular and in the fossil record. It has been observed in the laboratory as well as the field. The development of new species occurs through natural processes. Mathematics shows that reproducing systems, subject to selection, must evolve. There is no evidence that contradicts the fact of evolution. Nothing in biology even makes sense without it. The "Theory of Evolution" refers to the uncertainty regarding the mechanisms that drive evolution; e.g., mutation, natural selection, sexual selection, group selection, genetic drift. All of these occur, but their relative importance in the evolution of all life on Earth continues to be studied. In other words, "evolutionary theory" attempts to explain the fact of evolution, just as Einstein's theory of general relativity explains the natural phenomenon of gravity. Both evolution and gravity are physical phenomena, whether you believe them or not. If you want to argue the mechanisms behind these phenomena and provide evidence of an alternative theory, fine. If you prefer to believe, in the absence of any evidence, that God is the driver of evolution, that is your business. But evolution itself does not stop just because you don't believe in it, just as apples will still fall to the ground even if you don't believe in the theory of relativity.
Comment By JEFF E, 10-17-10http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05869.pdf
Drifter here is the report. There are years and years of similar data out there. One only has to look. If you don't agree, fine.
Prove otherwise.
(your opinion does not constitute proof)
While I await your substantiated examples of creationists deliberately bending science to make their models work, I'll ponder all of the deliberate frauds that evolutionists have foisted on the public in the name of proving their theory; frauds that, one would think, would be unnecessary if the factual evidence were so clearly on their side while using the theoretical explanation of that fact. Perhaps they were just impatient.
Follow the money, Whilst traditional physics and chemistry departments are government controlled in British and American universities, and there is a shortage of science teachers, there is an abundance of cash being poured into departments that will serve socialist ends, and no shortage of acolytes desirous to use this as a route to power.
Once there was modern science, which was hard work, now we have postmodern science, where the quest for real, absolute factual truth is outdated, and "science" is a wax nose that can be twisted in any direction to underpin the latest lying narrative in the pursuit of power. Data and evidence can be manipulated to present desired facts, money is the cause. FACT.
Jeff,
Your source collects the funds, they supposedly disperse those funds, us tax payers funds, yet I am supposed to trust their accounting of the funds.
I have $1200.00 hammer for sale, simple wood handle and 24 ounce head, with nail puller, are you in the market for that ?
Sorry, you believe em, I don"t. We need a whistle blower.
you ca believe whatever you want however prove otherwise, should be a simple exercise for you
Comment By bigsky, 10-17-10Sorry Jeffy, but I read the report. So what you are saying is that if cattle were compleltyl removed from the situation, the cost would disapper? WRONG. Many of the so called fees you tack onto the grazing of cows has nothing to do with cows. Do you think the BLM or the forest service is gonna dry up and blow away if the cows are gone. Lemme see, money to manage ungulate populations, money for studies, money for the business personel in each office, the list goes on. If you want higher fees for the grazers, lobby for them. If they are overgrazing a particular section, lobby against it. Taking cattle out of the picture only hurts the people and towns in those areas. PUBLIC LAND is PUBLIC, and cows are in the equation. Don't like it, TOUGH. You may think you own it, but no more than me, and you have no stake in this except to bruise your inflated ego. Also Jeffy, if you look at it your way, 1/6th is 1/6th more than you pay.
Comment By JEFF E, 10-17-10So BS may be you will answer the question. Why should western livestock producers get govt. backed competitive advantage over livestock producers elsewhere. pretty simple question. what is the answer?
Don't side step it, don't obfuscate it just answer it. anyone?
I don't pay 1/6 th because I am not a welfare rancher. I just help pay the other 5/6 ths year after year after year......
Any more moronic statements?
Already answered it jeffy, you just were not listening. No competitive advantage there. Market is farther away, people need jobs. Not everyone can live off the government, ya know....
Comment By Todd is marion dickinson, 10-18-10Todd, I mean Marion Dickinson, why are you afraid to post as your real name and why do you pretend to be a man when you are a woman?
Comment By Todd, 10-18-10Because I am afraid of violent haters like yourself that would delight in beating or killing an old lady.
Comment By JEFF E, 10-18-10BS,
And that has to be the weakest non-answer of the day. If you can't or won't just say so. Maybe some one else will.
To refresh. Why should livestock producers in the western states have a government subsidized competitive advantage over livestock producers elsewhere?
Obviously Marion and BS are so mired into the "welfare Queen" sense of entitlement that they have no answer or even see any disparity.
anyone else?
Jeff E exposed you Todd, I mean Marion, but I still don't know why you pretend to be a man? Atleast use a woman's name if you are going to pretend to be somebody else. No one is going to hurt you Marion. I don't condone violence Marion. We may have different views, but violence never solves anything.
Comment By Todd, 10-18-10It is surprising that New West, which seem to be trying to achieve a somewhat high brow place in real estate and conferences would allow this sort of harrasment by anonymous posters.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-18-10Wow! if its really true, and I haven't the faintest Idea if it is, that a woman is posing as a man on the internet it wouldn't be the first time or the last. But it is amusing to think about a woman impersonating a super macho, kick ass, rooten, tooten, wolf hating, cowboy in the tradition of John Wayne, or Clint Eastwood. Maybe she/he is Annie Oakley reincarnated.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-18-10rootin, tootin,
Comment By bigsky, 10-18-10bah bah bah, jeffy spews on the "facts"......He would have us all move out of state so he can have his privacy on PUBLIC land which he thinks he owns. Just shows the true colors of the environmental croud. All talk and push with no consideration for the people who need to land to live.
Comment By Angela, 10-18-10bigsky, what a ridiculous comment.
Comment By Marion Dickinson is a woman, 10-18-10Marion, no one is harassing you. Why don't you post as your real name and why do you post as a man's name? Your name is not Todd, it's Marion and that is the name you should be posting under. Why make others think you're a male when infact you are a female?
Comment By Todd is marion dickinson, 10-18-10Mickey Garcia, with little digging someone found out that Todd is a female named Marion Dickinson. I can't get a straight answer out of Todd, excuse me Marion Dickinson as to why she posts under a man's name when she is a woman. What is the purpose of posing as a man? Are you ashamed that you are a woman Marion? There is no need to have shame.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-18-10Well, actually, I'm more amused than perplexed. What does it matter? Rootin, Tootin, Straight Shootin Son/Daughter of a gun. Too Funny!
Comment By Angela, 10-18-10Whoever is calling Marion out, please stop. I think we all got the message. As a woman, I am frightened by your tone. Harassment often precedes violence against women in the "real world," which makes these messages sound very threatening, even if that isn't your intent. thanks.
Comment By bearbait, 10-18-10Preclude, exclude, all consumptive use of public land, including rutting trails with your hiking boots, llama feet, horse and mule hooves, and do not charge any kind of use fee whatsoever, and tell me how much it "costs" the taxpayers to guard the public land? To enforce the public laws on that land? Public land is not about "free." There is no free lunch. You pay the diverse work force and diverse by edict!! The USFS work force shall mirror the population of the State in which the work is performed by consent decree out of Region 5, to settle a lawsuit filed in 1974 by two women who thought they were discriminated against. Your friendly USFS worker will get twice (two times) the money the same job pays in the private sector, making the public sector worker a class above the local private work force. Nothing "free" about that. And, it is all at a cost to the taxpayer as the public lands generate no income under the above mentioned condition. It is public land, supported by those who pay taxes, which is in no way all of Americans. Should you have to produce a 1040 showing you paid some or any taxes in order to use public lands?
There was a time, when the USFS sold timber, that the USFS income was greater than its expenses. The timber money subsidized all other uses. That was not acceptable to the "public" as represented by the non-profits of litigation and lobby, the Mr. Marvels of the world. And, he is wont to not tell all the story, either, in his descriptions of cow calf pairs, called an AUM. A horse is 2 AUMs and it takes 5 sheep to make one AUM. Animal Unit Month. A term to describe the eating of grass and forbs for one month on public land. On a private land graze where the grass is irrigated, there is security 24/7, the animals do not have to expend many calories to find feed or water (as opposed to walking miles each day to water on many public grazing leases), the food and supplements are furnished, the fences are mended and tended, close by vet care available, there is no transportation costs for oversight, no predator losses, and all the other amenities of lush pasture under irrigation on much smaller pieces of land, and I guess the water supplied by the very same streams that will benefit from removal of livestock. We do need clean water for irrigation. And to poop in, so that clean water will float the poop to terminal collection ponds, be "treated", and the water put back in the creek, and the solids hauled by tanker to be put on fields that cannot grow food for humans or animals for three years--wink, wink. Yep. We need to have private land that is flat, arable, and not growing feed or food so that the John Marvels of the world have a place for their pollution to sit until winter rains wash it into the same streams he is "protecting." Nobody wants to step in cow flop, but most have no idea where their flop ends up. Using all the cheap, clean water, protected by Marvel, et al, to transport a turd to its collection place, is why we need clean water. Nobody wants to foul fouled water. Why, how bad would polluted water look in the bowl? So run the ranchers off so we can have clean water on the cheap in town? It all boils down to economics. Cleaning water is expensive, and when you live downstream, it costs more to clean water than it does upstream. Like, don't drink the water in Washington DC, because you don't know whose and how many kidneys that water has been through this week. That is why there is bottled water from some pristine spring somewhere: You are trusting that water has not been through a digestive system for a decade or more.
Do we really think thirty million bison did not poop, or that every dried bison chip was used to cook dinner? And what, pray tell, did those bison eat? And very little, at that? This deal is about cowboy envy. Pure and simple. This is revenge for some towel flipping that raised a welt on Marvel's ass sometime long ago. And he has lots of fellow travelers whose asses were also stung by a gym towel long ago or not so long ago. Bully boy behavior revenge. My lawyer is smarter than your lawyer.
We will never have roaming bison until the socialists take all the land from private ownership to state ownership. And then the oligarchs will have private inholdings of substance in select places in the "new commons." Like Al Gore's daddy and Armmand Hammer jetting off to their Arabian stud farm in Joe Stalin's Georgia. Just an oil billionaire and his dictator buddy entertaining a few friends and showing off their prize livestock. That is how the public lands end up being used. Politically connected get use, and the peasant gets a bad beet soup. I like all this talk about "subsidized ranchers." That from the guys and gals who have solar panels on the roof, most of the cost paid for by your taxes in some sort of subsidy to encourage solar panel use. Or legislation requiring you get a percentage of your power from renewable sources, all of which get huge government subsidies. You don't think the grass grown on public land by the sun is solar energy? All that is happening is ranchers are using solar energy on public land. Would you rather have wind turbines or hundreds of square miles of solar panels, all connected to some sort of million mile power line? If you live and breathe you are getting subsidized in some way by someone or some public institution or the government. It is like public television being "free." You don't pay to view it. I don't? It comes with the cable and I pay the cable bill. No advertising? How about all those tax forgiven trusts and foundations that "sponsor" the shows? No tax subsidy there? Non-profits reap millions and the people who give do so with money they don't have to pay taxes on, to people who get the money and don't pay taxes. No subsidy there? All this subsidy talk is bogus, and is just another way to demean the person you are preparing to take something from so as to lessen the vulgarity of the act, the smoothing over of the inhumanity of one man to another. Marvel hates people who are not him. And he is arrogant. When he bought a grazing lease and did not graze it, he broke the law and his contract with the US Government. So they took the lease from him, and leased the grazing unit to someone who would run livestock on it. Marvel doesn't have to obey law or contracts, in his own mind. I guess he has a license to break the law, issued by some division of the Cracker Jacks people. He evidently got the tin horn.
" you ca believe whatever you want however prove otherwise, should be a simple exercise for you "
I'll just turn that around, How about showing me the independent audits done by the accounting firm appointed that task by the public at large verifying the use of those funds, which then backs up the theory you want me to buy into which shows those government accounts are not misrepresenting the directions of any of the funds in question. Like I said, you trust em all you want to, because maybe those accounts fit up to your cause. I was just traversing some BLM and bumped into a couple of those fellers traveling to the same location to look at something, damn man, those two 2011 4x4 one ton trucks sure are nice. I guess one dude was supervising the other dude.
Drifter,
i don't need to prove there right, I find the info to corespond with years on years of other data on the subject. you however are questioning the veracity, so trot out your proof that it is wrong.
it should be simple and would settle the question.......................Well??
Angela, no one is harassing Marion. I just asked her why she pretends to be a man.
Comment By Todd, 10-19-10Oh this is definitely harassment and by someone that keeps their own identity secret.... potentially a very dangerous situation for the woman targeted. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me, but this has no connection to my beliefs or where I stand on issues. This is an attempt to verbally abuse if not instigate a physical attack.
I feel that New West owes it to all of the women on this site to provide at least the names of those doing the harassing. I have taken the steps of providing a print out of this to family in case you do decide to take it further. If this is allowed to continue I have no doubt at the least you will start in on someone else when I am no longer on here.
"Todd", no one is attacking you. I asked you why do you post under a male's name when you are a woman? What is the reason for this? You seem to be getting offensive and all I am doing is asking you a question. Another poster on here is the one who found out who you really are.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/the_guy_idaho_ranchers_love_to_hate/C619/L619/