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
![]() |
|
| “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.” Photo courtesy of Boise State. | |
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.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.





Comments
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.
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.
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.
how true.
Time for Marvel and his minions to go away. Time to cut their strings.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
By the way I doubt JeffE and John have lived as long combined as Todd has been my name.
Western Watersheds, is nothing more than a legalized, tax free, extortion ring. Give me money, or I'll sue! America, what a country!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/environmental-lawsuits-rake-billions-lawyers. And these people are crying about welfare grazing? This is a crime.....
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!
http://westinstenv.org/histwl/2008/06/07/the-pristine-myth-the-landscape-of-the-americas-in-1492/
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...
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
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
It's always harder to do the right thing, and that's exactly what you are doing.
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
And who kept those records during those years which supports this theory ? Knuckle Dragging Apes I presume..
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.
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
pollen cores and the fossil record
http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/wildamerica/grasslands/graslandoutline.html
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.
One more time: tell it to the judge!
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
http://creation.com/the-earth-s-magnetic-field-and-the-age-of-the-earth
http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young
An illuminating interview with physicist Dr D. Russell Humphreys
http://creation.com/creation-in-the-physics-lab-creation-magazine-russell-humphreys
Marion, BS??
Now answer the question. why should the west's welfare ranchers get a government backed competitive advantage over livestock producers elsewhere?
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.......
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)
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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??
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.
She confirmed it for me herself when I asked how her foot was doing that she broke a couple of years ago. It was actually her ankle which I knew and just used "foot" as a check against making a wrong assumption. i don't believe Marion is or has been disguising her gender but merely using her Maiden name(?) and letting other posters own assumptions work in her behalf. As far as where she lives that has been established numours times on numours web sites by herself, including Newwest
So are we all happy now?
I am very frightened by both of you, but I also have stood up for myself & my rights all of my life, so I shall continue even if it costs me my life. That is the intention to shut me up.
What you need to remember is that nothing on the internet ever goes away, not counting what people put in files for future reference.
You have also tried this everybody is picking on me tactic before too. that can also be found on the internet.
what you are attempting too pull now is precisely the crap that gets you so much crap.
" Determine whether the contract is firm-fixed-price or time and materials and execute the contract accordingly." ---Inspector General u.s. Department of the Interior ( Now I love this one, if there is no such determination one can steal the tax payers blind with this one.)
" Inaccurately labeling contract types is not unique to BLM. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on misidentified contracts. " ---Inspector General u.s. Department of the Interior ( And here !)
" Perform a modification to correct the mathematical error relating to the allocation of costs for (CLIN 1 ) and (CLIN 2 ) and address any double billings for equipment " and ; consult with the Office of the Solicitor to determine the appropriate action regarding ownership of property acquired using government funds.." ---Inspector General u.s. Department of the Interior
Gosh, all these opportunites for stealing and blaming it on ... Well you get it..
I just have to wonder how much of your $144 million annually is waste, theft, mismanaged, mislabeled..double billings, etc. etc..
So tell me Jeff, aren't you a state employee for Idaho ? State police perhaps ? Why are you so uncomfortable when it comes to state or federal government wrong doing ?
Now rush on out with your buddies and stomp some little snakes.. while the big one crawls off.
percisely. The GAO is the accounting arm that finds all these misuses. it is a GAO report that I linked above. thanks for proving my point
Why are you afraid to post your name if you really think names are important? Or do you just harrass those you think more vulnerable?
sure you have never debated anything with me?
http://www.newwest.net/main/article/wolf_haters_fight_trigger_itch/
(need to tell whoever is using your name to post that the syntax is all wrong. nice try)
being confronted about 1. using multiple screen names on multiple sites to spam and give the impression that many more people have the same opinions than is true and 2. continually using erronous information, even when pointed out and provided documentation otherwise, to carry out said spam is not bullying in any from other than your imagination.
you simply got called on your BS (now that is funny right there) and are now using every dirty underhanded trick and accusation you can to deflect it. classic Marion. I am sure you will remember this referance of mine in regards to yourself, "more slippery than a nightcrawler in a rainstorm".
Spam is the use of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately. While the most widely recognized form of spam is e-mail spam, the term is applied to similar abuses in other media: instant messaging spam, Usenet newsgroup spam, Web search engine spam, spam in blogs, wiki spam, online classified ads spam, mobile phone messaging spam, Internet forum spam, junk fax transmissions, social networking spam, television advertising and file sharing network spam.
Get a life and get off my back if you can't man up and admit who you are.
case in point .
more slippery than a nightcrawler in a rain storm
I've noticed that Craig "the right-wing pot-bellied wedding photographer" Moore has been posting again recently or is that Marion also? Who's on first here?
Hey Todd, I'm swinging in over yonder and I'll need a pot of coffee, sides, I want to check you out in a skirt.
Over the last 40 years, I've seen enough subsidized damaged Western lands by many (not all) operators to be convinced that change is sorely needed.
And change is never easy. Sorry to break the news.
The Public Grazing Conundrum
http://www.newwest.net/main/article/the_public_grazing_conundrum
Psttt-------- Jon Marvel, in the west we let our neighbors cross our land, that is how that rancher knew you were from somewhere else. The west used to be neighborly before it became "The New West!"
California isn't the west? Yep, I grew up in San Luis Obispo, CA, a ranching town great college, Cal Poly. Grew up riding horse, rancher's horses, as I was on welfare and couldn't afford any of my own.
Mike I live in a town of 108 people and I am surrounded by ranchers. Are you saying that just because I'm not a rancher I can't empathize with their plight. I don't have to be a rancher to know them.
Mike, I know the ranchers where I live in Swan Valley and I can cross their land as long as I make sure I close the gate.
Mike, I write for the same reason as you, to balance the argument but as NPR just showed us with the firing of Juan Williams, liberals don't believe in balance or free speech. We both argue our point to further our cause. If i shut up and those like me, your argument would carry the day and screw up America.
Another reason I write is every now and then someone pays me to do so. The articles I posted were written for the Jackson Hole Weeky. They offered me a weekly column because they liked my letters to the editor. If I were writing for self aggrandizement I would still be writing the column but the truth is, the money wasn't good enough for the time invested.
I never claimed to be a rancher as is evidenced by this article
http://www.greater-yellowstone.com/4-2006/Cowboy-endangered-species.html
I never bragged about making a fortune as I have never made one. I did take a pay cut when I moved out here though.
Mike - It sure didn't take much to get your panties in a wad :D
Mike, I think that since you first read my stuff slamming liberal policy years ago that you have noticed there is a growing cacophony of agreement with me and against you. Two years ago you thought you reached progressive nirvana and you are now upset that there is such a vociferous backlash undermining the new social state of Obama/Pelosi/Reid and Jon Marvel.
I suppose that is why your panties got wadded up so fast. You are quicker at calling names than a sitting democrat congressman in a tight 2010 election.
The Socialist People's Republik of the soon to be disUnited States built upon the lies of the communist left.
Over my dead body Mikey..
"How long has this Buffalo trying to escape YNP and enterfering with livestock growers been going on, 16 years or less ? "
You still don't seem to be able to grasp this concept. The vast majority of Americans don't want you trashing our high elevation, arid public lands in the name of tax payer subsidized, unsustainable grazing. You think you have the right to take away the minscule amount of land left for the Bison in the lower 48 that surrounds YNP all in the name of your delsuional fantasy of raising cattle on the border of YNP.
Keep on shrieking about communitsts and over my dead body and you owne rhwy people have an unfavoprable view of western ranchers.
Get a clue.
YNP is exactly what people do NOT want land to look like, as way, way too much of YNP has been grazed to the rocks, by wild animals. To find food, the most able migrate far out of the Park in winter. The best food, of course, is on range that was grazed in the summer season (private and public), as fall rains bring on new growth after the livestock is removed. That never happens on YNP because the land is over grazed on a daily basis as long as critters can get to the food under the winter snow. And there ain't much there to get.
The embarrassment of the over grazing was the instigation of wolf "recovery." The hard part of that action to swallow is that wolves do well as long as they have enough to eat, and territory enough to find enough to eat. And when the food runs low, they have the ability to travel hundreds of miles to kill targets of opportunity, which may include livestock. Not being able, legally, to protect the livestock under your care is not a reasonable request. But, national socialism has a bent in that direction, and what gets protected is what is desired to be protected by the most lucrative and vocal of purveyors of government. Money is speech, you know. Free and protected. The implied bribe is not there, according to the Supremes...
In this discussion of single psychotic anti grazing by one man of means, the value to the landscape of seasonal grazing by livestock is not ever going to be recognized. It does not support the agenda.
The large private ranch owners have a lifetime of experience with grass management, and if you want wild grazers on your land in hunting season, in early fall you run cows for a short time on where you want the game to be in November. Remove the rank grass, and renew the plants, and fall rain and early snows will bring about lush new growth, with all the palatability valued by wildlife and livestock alike, and that is where the hunting will be the most successful. The concept is called "management." There are a whole lot of humans around this orb in space, and only by management will we survive. The pressure will come from those with little means (the poorer you are, the more children you have or father), and population growth is declining in the emerging countries, and the emerged countries to where young, cheap labor will not be available in a generation. Now it is, in China and India, Indonesia. But not in the next generation. China is driving its economy to the firewall because they know that their labor force is aging before their eyes, and old labor is more expensive and comes with old age care costs. The US has already lost 3 million jobs to emerging nation young, cheap labor. Mostly employees over 50. Population in this country is only growing by net immigration right now, and new immigrants come from cultures of many children. That ends after a generation for those who assimilate. Those who do not assimilate founder for generations, all the while providing a source of cheap, poorly educated, labor.
There really is enough land in preservation, but not enough resources to create a fuel efficient economy, a green economy. The push pull of corn between feed and fuel is raising food costs. And investment banks are playing money games with their computers and each other, doing quite well. There is no consumer money to grow the economy, and private money is parked until things look better. Like after the election. Or not. Evidently there are enough Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns, left to disrobe, to strip bare, to keep Wall Street insanely profitable. I see the estimate for this year is $400 billion in profits, with $144 Billion in salary and bonus money est. to be paid out by Dec 31st.
Marvel is a beneficiary of Wall Street giving, which is driven by insane profits taken from blue collar workers by wage declines and out sourcing overseas. So they give to the likes of Marvel to assuage their sordid souls. Do their part to make it a better world. Plant lavender with one hand, and slaughter innocents with the other. Lovely world we have. That the spoils go to the likes of Marvel to wreak his havoc is part of what is not working in America. My opinion.
Wow, now that could be insane, bovines farting, moose fart, elk fart, deer fart, goats fart wolves fart, coyotes fart, my lab just farted, Uh-Oh, me to, we're doomed.
Sage is correct, once again Woodman is no Constitutional Scholar.
ARTICLE VI. Section 3 says that all senators and officers of the United States take and OATH to UPHOLD and support the CONSTITUTION of the United States. Part of this Oath in article 2 is that all senators and congressman will DEBATE all proposed bills or legislation as to their constitutionality; that is, they must make sure that all proposed measures are " in pursuance thereof." ( Of the Constitution.) It is therefore crystal clear that by there own admission having failed to spend even one hour on the Anti Terrorist Bill, the Health Care Bill, and even the Endangered Species Act, among many other Bills and measures, including the Treatises with the United Nations, Congress has been acting with no legal constitutional authority. In other words, the Senate and House members during these events did not find any constitutional grants in power for the Bills, Measures, Treatises above. Since there is no grant in power for the Anti Terrorist, Health Care, Endangered Species Act, etc. etc., Those measures fall to the ground and all actions taken under them are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void..
The National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires the Forest Service to conduct its planning to ensure a diversity of plant and animal species.
Once again NO debates concerning the Constitutionality of this Action (Act) Measure, Bill, so called " law". NONE !
" The Forest Service was established by an act of Congress in 1905, during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency, at the height of the Progressive Movement. The founding of the Forest Service actually has its roots in the last quarter of the 19th century."
Once again NO debates concerning the Constitutionality of this Action (Act) Measure, Bill, so called " law". NONE !
The national forests (originally called forest reserves) began with the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, which allowed the president to establish forest reserves from timber-covered public domain land. Several early leaders, visionaries, organizations, forestry professionals, and willing presidents led the successful effort to retain millions of acres of federal forest land for future generations.
Once again NO debates concerning the Constitutionality of this Action (Act) Measure, Bill, so called " law". NONE !
" The agency itself was created from two federal entities. Beginning in 1891, forested public domain lands were set aside by presidential proclamation in order to reduce destructive logging and preserve watersheds. The forest reserves were controlled by the Department of the Interior’s General Land Office. Forestry expertise, however, was the job of the Department of Agriculture’s Division of Forestry. The division's primary mission was information gathering and dissemination, and later, scientific experimentation was added to its responsibilities. On February 1, 1905, the USDA Forest Service was established within the Department of Agriculture. The agency was given a unique mission: to sustain healthy, diverse, and productive forests and grasslands for present and future generations. From the earliest days of the agency, the U.S. Forest Service has kept forest management as a primary focus."
Once again NO debates concerning the Constitutionality of this Action (Act) Measure, Bill, so called " law". NONE !
These illegal ACTions were the result of the Post Civil War Congressional unConstitutional ACTS which illegally amended the Constitution flopping State Sovereignty upside down and granting federal " jurisdiction " by illegal political moves which should be recognized and reversed. The first illegal and non ratified 14th Amendment of 1868, and later the non ratified 16th and 17th Amendments..
Swindlers always present great ideas, and these ideas are good, but they have become abusive and extremely over reaching in their "authoritarian ideologies" abusing the Rights of Property Owners, States Resources, And Declared Constitutional Rights.
If you Maughnites are going to continually point to the rules of law then I suggest you recognize most of these "laws" you point to have been set in place unlawfully.. DON'T LIKE TO HEAR THAT DO YOU ! BUT IT IS THE TRUTH !
The USA does'nt or need your wellfare, tax payer subsidize cattle on arid public lands around the GYE. The Bison nees that land to remain viable as a species.
Keep rnating about communists, socialists etc.
WE DONT WANT YOU OUT THERE HARRASING BISON FOR YOUR COWBOY MYHTH BS
It does'nt make snese ecologicialy, or economically to have these wellfare queens running theiur cattle in the Bison's last terrirtory. Ut just hsows you how anti-bison the cattle industry is, they won't even give up al ittle lan around the GYE for Bison.
Leanr to raise/or live with wild Bison or get the heck out of the GYE.
That's called progress no more well fare tax payer subsidized cowboy maggots sucking off the tax payer teets to maintian some bs myth about raising cattle.
Enough is enough kick these right wing extremist ranchers out!
What an articulate messenger you are for the environmental left.
The empathy you have for those that came before you is just astounding.
So you want to come to this area and kick those that came before you out. You put Rocky Mountain ranchers out of business and you watch what happens to our beautiful valleys "Subdivision" the law of unintended consequences.
Talk about welfare - look at the green energy industry.
Before you respond let the effects of that joint wear off or get a dictionary as your rant is hard to follow.
http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_7cd095ac-eb02-5abd-97fb-54616b3ecd19.html
And I believe 3% or less of the ranching community are considered to be welfare ranchers excepting this subsidy payment you all are whining about. Since we are on the subject of sciences you dope smoking cowboy and rancher hating extreme leftist marxist nut jobs might consider this comment left at another blog earlier this morning.
If our fellew citizenery does not soon awaken to these environmentalist scams of so-called resources protection, in truth resources destruction, and their dependent unatural behavior they are going to learn another science which they continually ignore. The science of starvation. The managed resources of wild game are useless to us if their fluffie destroys all of it. Of course this includes the destruction of those most hated ranchers, farmers, and stopping those misreable hunter gatherer types, who once fed the tribes throughout history, apparently not needed anylonger in this new age ara, acccording to a pack of blind fools, thus increasing their dependence on foreign support for the bare essentials to sustain their daily nutrional needs, once those foreigners become angered enough and cut them off, the real fun begins. I'll be keeping my powder dry along with my dry goods because obviously my studies into the science of ballistics technology will become crucial not only against the four legged wolf, but the two legged starving madmen, who fanatically fantascized about a better way to progress into the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment#Results
" The full report of results from the Minnesota Starvation Experiment was published in 1950 in a two-volume, 1,385 page text entitled The Biology of Human Starvation (University of Minneapolis Press). The fifty chapters of this treatise contain an extensive analysis of the physiological and psychological data collected during the study together with a comprehensive literature review."
" Among the many conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), a standardized test administered during the experimental period. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression. There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally).[1] Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation."
" The participants reported a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities, although the standardized tests administered showed no actual signs of diminished capacity. There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest) and reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. Some of the subjects exhibited edema (swelling) in the extremities, presumably due to the massive quantities of water the participants consumed attempting to fill their stomachs during the starvation period."
In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.
Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines: natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and social sciences, which study human behavior and societies, the latter being my field of expertise. These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being experimented for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.
Blah blah blah on that !
displaying more of that right wing prejudism and bigotry I see.
How are subdivisions going to overtake public land?
Your cowardly bigoted insults are furthur proof of your guilt for being a wellfare queen.
better luck next time wellfare ranchers.
for the last time your wellfare queen ranchers who use arid, western PUBLIC LAND not PRIVATE LAND only produce 3% of the nations beef. We don't want or need food from those sources. Now use some of that self reliance and stop sponging off society by being a wellfare queen PUBLIC LANDS rancher.
The cows vs condos myth does'nt apply for PUBLIC LANDS.
And I believe 3% or less of the ranching community are considered to be welfare ranchers excepting this subsidy payment you all are whining about. Since we are on the subject of sciences you dope smoking cowboy and rancher hating extreme leftist marxist nut jobs might consider this comment left at another blog earlier this morning."
Umm where exactly did you drift from? THE ASYLUM?
LMAO you talk about hunter gatherer types as ranchers. You ummy you killed all the hunter gatherers (Indians)
How is ranching hunter/gagtherer?
If you really were a hunter/gatherer you would be ok with native wildlife or at least give it a little room instead of complete and udder (no pun) ominanace by the cattle industry of our public lands.
Leave the GYE wellfare rancher queens leave our PUBLIC LANDS.
Hmmm Daryl L. Hunter your comments are quite similar to this rancher's bigoted comments. I guess you wellfare queens are one in the same eh. BTW I don't smoke "dope", but judging by yuor comments I'd say your "dope" of choice would be the traditional choice of right wing extremsit, wellfare queen ranchers. Good ole Keystone light!
No more bigoted ranchers ruing our public lands with their parasite, tax payer subsidized PUBLIC LANDS ranching schemes.
BTW Daryl I dont hate all ranchers, in fact i'm friends eith many REAL ranchers not the wellfare type like you and your ilk though.
You said "How are subdivisions going to overtake public land?"
I explain it here
http://www.greater-yellowstone.com/4-2006/Cowboy-endangered-species.html
You say - "Your cowardly bigoted insults are furthur proof of your guilt for being a wellfare queen."
All I can say to that is I use my own name - that is not cowardly.
Thanks for taking the time to communicate without so many typos and misspellings.
you expect me to read an article authored by you, gee that's unbiased. Sorry not gonna buy your right wing con spiracy that public lands will become private subdivisions.
"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."
"Talk about welfare - look at the green energy industry.
Before you respond let the effects of that joint wear off or get a dictionary as your rant is hard to follow."-Darryl L Hunter
You see your just like the cowardly bigoted rancher in the article. As if using a name makes you brave LMAO!
I love how you necks use your real names on these blogs and are so proud of it. I dont care if you use your real name, im not gonna look you up and harras you like the right wingers love to do.
Basically your just an angry grammar nazi wellfare rancher qwueen. Your more concerned with image and puncuation than reality and the actaul message people are spreading. Just more cowboy myth BS from the right wingers.
You really are a pathetic case defending an obviuosly unsustainalbe, parasite cattle industry that for so long has ruled the american west. Newsflash we're taking back our land from the bigoted ranchers who feel entitled to any and all land.
Change is coming and the ranchers wil continue to pout, whail and cry that finally the playing field is a littel more even.
but hey keep screaming about totaltitarian greenies, dope smokers etc.
Keep up the bigoted behavior and you'll see the ranchers image will improve....LMAO!
You said "How are subdivisions going to overtake public land?"
I explain it here
http://www.greater-yellowstone.com/6-2006/Public-Grazing.html
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_4d098f2a-e3e4-11df-b0be-001cc4c03286.html
I miss read your question. I posted "You put Rocky Mountain ranchers out of business and you watch what happens to our beautiful valleys "Subdivision".
Then you said "you said "How are subdivisions going to overtake public land"
Since I never said subdivisions would take over public land, Let me spell it out for you. Public land lessors own ranches in the valley bottoms of the Rocky Mountains, without the public land lease they can't stay in business so they have to find the next best use of their land "Subdivision".
Today these ranches are green spaces, tomorrow they will be subdivisions and you will have many more people to run ridges with due to the influx of ranchette and condo owners.
Rancher haters rejoice -
Since 1980, the population of the 13 Western states has risen by more than 20 million, or 47 percent. That's about twice the growth rate of the United States as a whole.
The fastest-growing parts of the West are rural, not urban or suburban areas, according to an analysis of census data by David Theobald, a geographer at Colorado State University.
The conversion of land from agriculture to residential, commercial and industrial use is taking place at an even faster rate than population growth. In the West, the amount of land carved up and swallowed by development rose from 20 million acres in 1970 to 42 million acres in 2000, according to Theobald.
And the most attractive land left for development is the same land that is most productive for ranching and for wildlife: the mid-elevation, best-watered land in the West.
More of article at - http://www.hcn.org/issues/271/14648
Again i'm not buying your cows vs condos myth or any other rancher lies.
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/cows_or_condos_a_false_choice_between_public_lands_ranching_and_sprawl/C564/L564/
By George Wuerthner, 2-16-10
Ag crops, many of them grown for livestock feed, dominates western landscapes.
"Author’s Note: I first wrote this about 8 years ago, but the same arguments continue to crop up today with livestock proponents using the fear of sprawl as their club against any serious critiques and full accounting of the ecological impacts of livestock production. These arguments fail to consider the full geographical footprint of livestock production, nor the economic forces that drive sprawl."
Hate to burst your bubble, but you public lands ranchers are parasites.
BTW I don't run ridges my name os after Wild Bill Moreland the Ridgerunner of the Clearwater, but you probally don't know about any of that.
How about you do some honest research into why people have a rpoblem with you wellfare queen parasite ranchers.
So you are OK with the Ranchette sprawl as long is it replaces the evil ranchers? Your assertion is their land isn't enough to matter in the big picture, right?
Ridgerunnah, I don't expect you to buy "reason" as you are an ideologue. I like to argue with ideologues on forums to make my points to those who read and wish to learn.
The ideology you share with Jon Marvel robs you of your humanity, Ranchers are people and I have empathy for them. Many were born where they work and live and have for generations and your gross paucity of empathy for American families is shameful.
What would you grandparents think of your posts?
" Food: The food leaders came to realize that there are three basic building blocks from which all food products stem from: corn, wheat, and soy. Those who gain control of these natural resources will sit atop the food industry pyramid. The poster child for the food cartel, GMO-chemical giant Monsanto, has control of 90% of the U.S. soybean crop and 80% of the corn crop, while most of the cotton crop is also grown with seeds containing Monsanto's technology. They have three times the sales of seeds as their nearest competitor, Dupont. It also has been reported that they have systematically bought up the majority of heirloom seed companies, and are rumored to be systematically eliminating heirlooms in favor of their patented GMOs or hybrids. Furthermore, nearly all other industrial crops depend on agri-chemicals sold by Monsanto or Dupont, as well as some dairy farms. "
" There are also major livestock and poultry monopolies that depend on the corn and soy for feed. Cargill, the largest privately-owned company in America, is also a major player in the cartel. The company that represents the gatekeeper for food processing companies is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) where cereal grains and oilseeds are processed into products used in food, beverage, nutraceutical, industrial and animal feed markets worldwide. This cartel now fully controls the FDA and USDA and operates a global food empire. "
Enjoy your chemically altered grocery's that screw with your thinking process.
" Wild Bill Moreland took off for the woods in the 1930's no one knows why he initially went into the forest. It is speculated that he may have stolen from a sheep rancher that he was employed with. Wild Bill survived in the Sawtooth Bitterroot Mountains for 10 years. This is perhaps one of the harshest environments in the lower 48 states, where below zero temperatures and 10 foot snow drifts are common. He survived by hunting and fishing. He slept in hollow logs and built shelters. However he was still reliant on forest service cabins that he could break into to gather food and necessary supplies that he needed to live. He seemed impervious to the elements even to the point of pulling his own teeth when they became infected. Although many questioned his sanity few of us could survive under those conditions." Especially today, what with how scientists have destroyed the fisheries, and several elk herds with their experimenting with how they think, based on some fact and mostly conjecture when comes to the functions of nature. I raise horses, organic foods grown from my 1000ft garden, and I hunt for my meat. All on and near my private property. I don't steal from towns to survive, nor break into forest service cabins and use or steal from them.. Wild Bill is some hero.. There are many others who lived in the woods in the depression years and they did not steal or vandalize while doing it. Maybe you don't care to know them. Although the Wild Bill Moreland survived for the most part away from humans it is obvious that he still relied on some of the things that society had, and no doubt he would not have turned down a good beef steak, or even some choice lamb.
I don't know if Wild Bill Moreland was a name calling bitch though..
My my how you've digressed from the point.
The USA does'ntr want or need wellfare ranchers on arid, western public lands. A large majority of this country is dedicated to cattle. We don't need cattle running right outside of yellowstone on PUBLIC lands.
Spare me your empathy Darly l hunter, thise ranchers are some of the least empathetic people i've ever met.
Drifter from the asylum spare me your bill moreland bio.
Talk about corporations Drifter, how about that US cattle inustry. Just becuase your not eating local, wellfare, tax payer subsidized beef does'nt mean it can't be local, grass-fed orgaic meat.
I never said he was my hero, but he sure was'nt no loely, wellfare, parasite public lands right wing extremist rancher like you tow are.
Just let it go, you tow have wayy to much free time on your hands.
Again these tow nuts diverge fromthe topic and make ludicrous assumptions/prejudism about anyone opposed to wellfare, parasite public lands ranchers.
Just let it go hateful ranjchers...you loose.
Drifter
Was that your nasty one-liner at the end that i'm supposed to get upset at. Do you know what hypocrisy is, your the name caller you moron...wow your dumb.
Done with you tow just look at the majority of the cpomments only toddler, drifter from the asylum and Daryl L. Wellfare queen are defending the parasite, wellfare queen, tax payer subsidized "ranchers."
You loose bahahahhahaa
you name calling bitch you
bahahahhahahah.
You didn't answer my question if it was OK with you that Ranchette sprawl is OK as long replaces the evil ranchers?
But don't bother as I am wasting my time arguing with someone that doesn't know how to spell.
I unchecked the Notify me of follow-up comments.
November 2, is a brand new day in America :D
Bye Bye
Wild Bill moreland aka the Ridgerunnah hunted mostly wild, native wildlife for food. When he did ransack a cabin the closest thing to a beef steak he got to was a can of conred beef he heated over small fires in grease. He did'nt use public lands for some ludircous cattle operation supported by taxpayers, and wellfare monies. He took what he needed from the amply supplied FS cabins but he did'nt hang around on a dying cattle op, kicking and ascreaming about pot smoking socialists trying to end his way of life becuase he's too stubborn to learn to ranch without being a parasite on the public!
Actually I DID answert your question becuase for the lastfreakin time i'm talking about PUBLIC LANDS! PUBLIC LANDS will not become subdivided becuase of the removal of cattle. Keep posting your mistruths, lies and about cows vs condos and see how far it gets you grammar nazi you. I dont proofread becuase I really dont care about these posts like you do.
GET Wellfare queen cattle off arid, western public lands period.
I cannot imagine that all of the filth and trash talk helps New West attract advertisers so they can keep the site going.
not so, removing cattle does not equal lost access to lands just cattle damaged land.
and todd you think your endless right wing extremist trolling is good for this site?
Regarding ranchers hurting in this economy, why should they be treated any differently than any other communities or people being laid off of work and losing their houses? There are many ways to make money with a ranch besides running cattle on public lands. People must be willing to change, just as many of us have had to adjust to new economic hardships. I know that sounds harsh, and I don't want anyone to have to give up their property either, but I and many others are having to find creative ways to supplement our income due to reduced hours and layoffs. Is this not equally possible for people with large pieces of property?
Appreciate the reasoned contribution to the discussion though! Both sides need to accept the issues and opinions of the other in order to determine the best ways forward. There is not likely one solution for all, and I don't think anyone wants to drive the ranchers off of their land, or even eliminate grazing on public lands entirely, but we need to be open to discussing better options. The only way to do that is to truly listen to each other, strive to find the facts among the falsehoods, and not resort to name-calling, stereotyping, and sensationalism. Both sides will need to be open to compromise to some degree.
You have been fed a lot of lies by enviro groups wanting to get your money, and that money and power is the only thing they care about. You do realize that livestock grazes approximately 3 months and is adjusted down if it is too dry and grass is not growing well.
When I go out to count and photograph sage grouse in the spring during the strut, it is too early for grass to be coming up, but the grass left from the summer before is still tall enough to make photgraphing the chickens difficult.
I don't think you realize how important ranching is to small communities, but they will survive by selling their land to developers or for trophy ranches, which in turn close off access across the land to the "public land". That will really gain a lot for you.
The other thing that you folks do not realize is how much wildlife is fed by ranchers, especially in winter. I just saw a herd of approximately 100 head of elk on private land on North Fork the other day on my way to Yellowstone. I went in the east entrance as far as Canyon and saw nothing but buffalo and one coyote inside of the park.
Many ranchers are already selling and leasing their land to oil and wind power companies. Access isn't really an issue in my eyes; there is more than enough access to our public lands. I would hate to see the private land of large ranches developed, but that will be up to the ranching families and the decisions they make, and to how lands are zoned.
Feeding elk is good for elk hunters, but a perfect way for diseases like wasting disease to spread.
I think we need to identify the areas where cattle grazing is resulting in persistent environmental impacts to resources in the public trust and find ways to resolve the problem, as in any resource conflict. This isn't anything new and it can be done.
Todd - whether environmentalists have money or not is a red herring. Don't be jealous, most of them are just scraping by.
and the prejudiced, bigoted pro ranchers continue their delsuional fight against the evil enviros becuase they won't admit their own wellfare, tax payer subsidized lifesyle is going sour.
Keep playing the victim and acting like a bigot thats what pro ranvchers do best!
I dont hate ranchers but rather their refusal to compromise, admit mistakes, change etc.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_7548d0fa-e88e-11df-a517-001cc4c03286.html
I can't believe people in this country are so damn afraid of wildlife these days and treat every attack as if it means we have to eradicate all large carnivores from the planet. What is it with you people? I have never seen this phenomena before in my 50 years of life. Two men with guns are afraid of a pack of wolves? The story is suspect to me. Two deaths are hardly an epidemic. We should probably outlaw lightning too, and driving in cars. There are countless factors affecting human mortality and longevity rates, from pesticides to smoking to fishing in the ocean, etc. If you want to live in a safe bubble, feel free. But there is no reason that grizzlies, black bear, mountain lion, and hornets--all of which might kill you--need to be eradicated just because of an occasional attack. Most Americans are willing to accept that. You won't be attacked if you stay out of the woods, just as you won't drown if you never go near water, so people can make their choices. If you go hiking or hunting where there are grizzlies or bears or venomous snakes, or go swimming where there are sharks, you need to be prepared and accept the risk, or stay home. I backpack alone myself, and have had some scary close encounters, but it has only enhanced my life and experience. Two of my sheep were killed by a coyote near my house the summer before last and I still enjoy seeing that coyote occasionally come around. The scariest experience I have had with wildlife was being attacked by a nest of hornets while working in a remote field site and having to go to the hospital for antihistamine shots. But it hasn't resulted in me being afraid of hornets or wanting to eradicate them. I will never understand the fear of wildlife. You are much more in danger of dying, or your family members dying, when you drive a car. But nobody is outlawing cars. Eighteen-year-old men and women sign up every day to go to Iraq and Afghanistan; surely we can live with a bear and wolf or two. If people are truly afraid of wildlife, they can live in a city.
Shamus, there aren't just two types of people in this world: hard-working courageous men and useless intellectuals. In other words, it takes all kinds to build a great nation like ours. If it weren't for all the pointy-headed libtards in New York and California paying taxes for farm subsidies, you might find it a lot harder to support the life you love. Where do agricultural subsidies fit into your "free enterprise" system? If you believe in free enterprise, then why shouldn't environmental organizations be allowed to compete with ranchers and logging companies for the use of public land?
How about offering a little more in the way of ideas and solutions based on the facts and a little less in the way of emotion? A mind is a terrible thing to waste, after all. Here is some food for thought:
“...public ownership of resources encourages counterproductive subsidies for politically influential groups of resource users. Most criticism of such subsidies targets the unfairness of using federal tax dollars to fatten the income of some at the expense of others; less attention is paid to the fact that subsidizing public resource users has detrimental economic and environmental impacts as well. Unfairness, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. Economic efficiency, however, is not.
“...Agricultural subsidies are likewise rife for public land users. Myriad rangeland maintenance programs provide valuable services at little or no cost to those who graze cattle on public land. Most important, access to federal water at artificially low rates ensures not only counterproductive land uses in arid regions but also that water scarcity will continue to haunt the West. Indeed, federal water subsidies to farmers may well be the most environmentally destructive program in the federal budget. Forcing agricultural users of the federal estate to pay for rangeland maintenance
programs through special fees and requiring agricultural users to pay market rates for water access are obvious remedies.”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-47.pdf
“Public-land grazing is an American anomaly. In a culture and economy of free enterprise, it is the nation's most conspicuous and extensive flirtation with socialism. Deeply regulated, like other sectors of the economy, it is an industry owned and operated by the U.S. government. The land and grass are federal property, planning and management are federal functions, and the workers--the 27,000 ranchers who own the livestock--are federally licensed, supervised, and subsidized...Economically, public-land grazing is insignificant; it accounts for less than 3.5 percent of the nation's beef, and federal rangeland provides less than 2.6 percent of the nation's total feed for cattle, sheep, horses, and goats. Yet public-land grazing makes up in size for what it lacks in productivity...Three-quarters of the federal land in the West are dedicated to public-land grazing. Grazing on those 265 million acres eclipses logging, farming, and mining and serves as the mainstay of the region's rural economy. From Nevada, where 82 percent of the land is federal, to Washington, where less than a third is federal, livestock grazing is big government business--and an expensive business at that.
“Since its inception at the turn of the century, public-land grazing has consumed billions of tax dollars and has had questionable economic, social, and environmental outcomes. Intended to serve the public interest, it has failed to serve even the special interests of livestock producers. Net ranching incomes are at historic lows, and the economic values of grazing permits are far below their peak in the early 1980s. Further, public-land grazing has left deep divisions in American society, rifts exacerbated by mounting deficits in the grazing program, alleged inequities in the allocation of public-land resources, and real and perceived environmental costs arising from use of public lands for livestock. Those issues underscore the flaws and defects of a century of public-land grazing.”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa234.pdf