REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Unmasking Liberalism on the Arizona Range

POSTED BY: JONGSSTRAW
UPDATED: Thursday, May 23, 2013 15:24
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3115
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, May 19, 2013 5:23 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER




Environmentalists don't require that an area of damaged land be left alone to regenerate. That is a misreprentation of the ideology of any environmentalist I have known. Damaged areas often need revegetating and managing in order to be repaired. Environmentalists are into land management practises, including revegration, culling of vermin species, burning and so on. Likewise, you can be a farmer who manages his/her land well. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. You don't have to pick a side and point the finger at the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revegetation

I don't think this author knows the first thing about the beliefs of environmentalists, liberals or conservatives for that matter.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 20, 2013 2:09 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I don't think this author knows the first thing about the beliefs of environmentalists, liberals or conservatives for that matter.



I don't know.

I've talked to folks who claim the environmental mantle, and were adamant that we should unfence the U.S. western prairie so wild horses could run free like they did for thousands of years before the white man came.

This sort'a ignores the fact that the white man brought the horse to the Americas around 500 years ago.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 20, 2013 2:38 AM

AGENTROUKA


There's ignorant idiots in every group, though. I don't think they represent the core of informed environmentalism.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 20, 2013 3:05 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
There's ignorant idiots in every group, though. I don't think they represent the core of informed environmentalism.




No doubt. Lots and lots and lots of ignorant conservatives believe the Earth is 6000 years old - and then they argue that we need to be drilling for fossil fuels so they can drive their giant SUVs. And they don't see the inherent incompatibility of those two positions.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 20, 2013 3:14 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Look at his source, Mags. American Thinker magazine. Title like that, I don't even have to open the cover to figure out where they stand politically.

And, of course, you're right. Not every farmer or rancher is out to destroy everything in the eco-system that doesn't benefit HIMSELF. And just fencing off an already damaged area and leaving it alone may not be enough to allow it to recover. It may need more help.

I'd love to see more info about both of the cases they write about, much more detail. Maybe they cherry-picked the absolute best looking place on that ranch to photograph, and the worst looking spot in that abandoned desert.

But, hey, don't nobody rush out and make it a research project just for me. I'm too lazy to do it myself. I read the article he cited I've already drawn my conclusion, just from the name of the magazine and the tone of that piece.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 20, 2013 4:32 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Environmentalists don't require that an area of damaged land be left alone to regenerate. That is a misreprentation of the ideology of any (REAL)environmentalist

Do enough damage to any small section of land, it becomes barren. That's long past proven, over and over. Ridiculous.
Quote:

Look at his source, Mags. American Thinker magazine.

I read the entire article anyway--if it's not Breitbart or InfoWars or something totally extreme, I do. It's just plain silly, end of story.

Just Rap being Rap: GRAB ANYTHING!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 20, 2013 1:21 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


I spent a little time on researching this. Googled "Drake Enclosure Arizona."

NOthin'

closest I got to anything is a piece about Drake, Arizona,being missing. Apparently, the place has been abandoned , turned into a ghost town, been out-migrated by everybody.


And I noticed that the piece in American Thinker does not name the conservative rancher, nor identify the ranch.

Now I ain't sayin' they made the whole thing up, but a quick check doesn't confirm very much. I'm gonna dig a little deeper, maybe try Google Earth or Mapquest.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 20, 2013 1:40 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


found a Drake Biomass Project, a $1.1 million ( or $1.4 Million, I found both numbers. Hey, only $ 300,000 difference, that's nothin') project by the Arizona Forestry to get local ranchers to supply brush cutting as an alternate fuel to a local power plant. Drake Arizona seems to be a cemetary, a Drake Cement Company plant, and an abandoned highschool sinking back into the desert.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 20, 2013 1:45 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Wikipedia lists a BNSF railroad station, but no population, calls it an unincorporated community. It's also the site of the old Hell Gate railway Bridge.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 20, 2013 1:49 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


found Drake enclosure-- oops, it's a line of products from Drake Communications Corp. Metal boxes you build electronics projects, like radios, inside of.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 20, 2013 1:56 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Another Drake Enclosure-- it's around that cemetery, separating it from the Cement plant. It's claimed as a historic site. oughtta be sanctified ground, too, shouldn't it, bein' a cemetery 'N all, dead folks bein' buried there....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 20, 2013 2:02 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


found the Arizona state forestry service, searched " Drake Enclosure " " No result "

Oh , maybe the government bureaucrats are covering up the existence of their failure...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 20, 2013 2:18 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"In 1946, the U. S. Forest Service erected a fence around a portion of an area exhausted by human overuse and misuse in this arid rangeland to demonstrate one of the core principles of modern liberal environmentalism -- that the best way to restore damaged land to ecological health is to protect it from the impacts of humans."

Is the author saying that modern conservationists embrace methods 65 years old?

As an example of current land preservation/ restoration practices you can look at McHenry, IL land restoration by the Nature Conservancy:

Land Restoration is both an art and a science. In the course of restoring the ecological integrity of a property, TLC may need to:

* Reduce soil erosion.
* Control foreign species that squeeze out native plants.
* Sow seeds of native plants.
* Return fire to the landscape in a controlled manner.
* Return water flows to their natural courses.
* Minimize damage from chemicals such as road salt and fertilizer.
* Monitor particularly rare species.


None of this sounds like fencing it and leaving it alone.

BTW there's an interesting nursery in California. The couple that own it are practicing land-restoration professionals who plan major restoration projects all over California. I've been to their website and they have a lot of interesting things to say about native soil, water, plant and animal communities. Very unobvious things that you don't learn by looking at a picture.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 20, 2013 2:20 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:


http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthink
er.com/articles/../2013/05/unmasking_liberalism_on_the_arizona_range.html


Oh please, keep the masks on.



And will Jongsie ever return to discuss - yanno - actual facts?

Naawww ....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 20, 2013 3:27 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Tony Soprano: (holding up carton of orange juice)..."You see this?"

Carmella Soprano: "What?"

Tony : "It says with pulp."

Carmella: "So. You like it with pulp."

Tony: "No, I like it with some pulp.

Carmella: "F**k you" ... (throws phone at him)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 20, 2013 3:40 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


As predicted.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


More from Mr. Dagget here: http://rightway2bgreen.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?orderby=update
d



"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:25 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)



Huh. Citing 65 year-old practices as "typical" of "liberalism".

I'll play. You know what conservatives thought was a good idea around 65 years ago? Setting off nukes not terribly far from downtown Las Vegas. Hell, they even had big parties to celebrate 'em.



http://io9.com/5902390/wild-vegas-parties-celebrated-atomic-bomb-tests
-of-the-1950s


Quote:

During the 1950s, the mushroom clouds from these tests could be seen for almost 100 mi (160 km) in either direction, including the city of Las Vegas, where the tests became tourist attractions. Americans headed for Las Vegas to witness the distant mushroom clouds that could be seen from the downtown hotels.
On 17 July 1962, the test shot "Little Feller I" of Operation Sunbeam became the last atmospheric test detonation at the Nevada Test Site.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_National_Security_Site

Clearly this is the modern conservative mindset when it comes to health, the environment, and hazardous waste and fallout. [/sarcasm]

Right, Jongsie?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:54 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Nice work, NewOld! I wouldn't have gone to that much trouble, but I'm glad you did.

So let's see. A guy with "something to prove" (blog: "rightway2bgreen") takes a picture of a sign



(know how cheaply and quickly I could have such a sign made?)

...on a blogspot (one which, by the way, hasn't got a SINGLE comment) and writes a loooong screed about it, complete with snarks at Occupy and other "liberal" things. AmericanThinker picks it up and publishes an article about it. Nothing official can be found to back it up, despite a pretty good search (it says "outside Prescott, Arizona", so I Googled "Prescott Arizona Drake" too...nada). Geezer's "evidence" is to post a link to the guy's blog.

Amusing.

I'm not saying it's definitely not true, but surely there should be SOMETHING showing it exists besides his blog and American Thinker's article. On top of which, of course, the forestry service has never screwed up, right? Anyone remember the Yellowstone Fire? Or the fact that the forestry service--of Arizona, by the way, not the national forestry service, doesn't represent The Left OR Conservationists, or ConservationISM...

All in all, I'm not terribly impressed, I'm afraid. I'd call this a "fail", on numerous fronts. Mostly, it's just not worth the attention, as it proves nothing and doesn't even make its point.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:03 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
More from Mr. Dagget here: http://rightway2bgreen.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?orderby=update
d



"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."


Thanx for the link--I went there.

Most of what's there is just a rehash of the piece from American Thinker,(or the A T piece is a rehash of it.) buried in pages of attack blog-posts. It offers no outside quotes from either side, no verifiable facts, no specific place names. closest thing to a fact is "near Prescott Arizona. One picture is captioned as " outside the Drake enclosure". Uh-huh. SO is Maui. So is Brazil. How far outside?

It seems that the so-called Drake enclosure is being billed as an experiment- it might be conceived as a control baseline. "Let's see what happens if we do nothing-- no further damage, but no effort to rejuvenate either." That would be good science.

The original site was damaged by overuse-- that was buried in the article somewhere. Sensible green folks would suggest that OVERUSE is the problem, not ANY use.

Some limited cattle grazing should be part of a rehab plan. Cows leave behind nutrient rich residue, good fertilizer that helps new plants grow.

(Gorrammit, I'm trying to save up BULLSHIT! to use as a punchline and commentary. Ain't gonna work out. )

But too much grazing, too many cows, works out badly. The extreme case is feedlots, too many cows packed together too close. Manure gets piled up in hills, chemicals leaching out run off into nearby water, stimulate unhealthy growth, de-oxygenate the water, kill the fish, the water winds up toxic downstream.

That's why I spent most of the day yesterday trying to research this one myself, making all those posts. I wanta find out more about BOTH of these places this Daggett guy is writing about, validate the purpose of this barren enclosure, see how well this "conservative rancher" manages his entire property, what he does about effects f his property on his neighbors and the surrounding environment.

I'm
not ready to condemn either side yet. But this writer is all attack, no facts.

I once worked for a company that was pretty good about MSDS posting- Materiel Safety Data Sheets-- one day I had to work on a chemical system. There was no MSDS for what it contained. I asked the Supervisor what the stuff was, where the MSDS was. He said he stuff was harmless, a 1 on the risk scale on all the MSDS factors, and that if the MSDS was missing, it was just an accidental oversight. I worked on the system in goggles, face shield, neoprene gloves, an apron and boots. He suggested that the precautions were unnecessary, a waste of time.

I did the job, but it got reported up the line. Some MONTHS later, as MSDS was produced. They gave me a copy, made sure I signed a receipt that acknowledged that I had read it, put that in my Personell file. They also made that supervisor sign off on the MSDS at that point. He literally did not know. He and I actually remained friends. The stuff was a level 2 Mutagen, absorbed thru the skin. Every single precaution I took was on the required handling regs. It turned out to be the most hazardous substance they used in the plant--I checked that one-- every other ingredient they used WAS pretty harmless.

Anyway, that's how I feel about this case-- they're NOT TELLING me TOO much. I'm really curious about what they're covering up, and why. That's why I spent the time looking into it yesterday.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:04 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Went another direction and checked out the author. He IS for real, and has an agenda:
Quote:

In his new book Dan Dagget describes a new conflict over management of western resources. Instead of the tired old set-piece of preservation versus extraction, we now have a fresh, new struggle between Leave-It-Aloners--as Dagget terms those who believe that the best thing for humans to do with land is to leave it alone and let nature take its course--and the Lost Tribe, who are busy reversing land degradation through use.

Conflict, writes Dagget, is one of the major economic sectors to emerge from America's public lands. And Dagget himself is definitely a player. In the 1990s, he broke ranks with the advocacy-oriented Sierra Club on the grounds that results on the land counted more than prescriptions or beliefs. He began to follow the experiments of people such as Tony and Jerrie Tipton in Nevada, who were restoring grasslands on sterile, salt-encrusted mine tailings with cattle and hay where conventional prescriptions of technology and rest from grazing had failed utterly.

Using cattle to restore land, Dagget found, collided with what people "knew": that cattle could not restore land, they invariably degraded it. Therefore the grassland atop the mine tailings was invisible or irrelevant. It was, he says, like showing pictures of dog tricks to a cat fanatic.



I could debate his premise that everyone "knew" cattle invariably degraded land (standing alone, which it does not) and that leaving the land completely alone is what environmentalists/conservationists WANT, but why bother. He's a happy camper on his mission--apparently he was originally a fanatic for Earth First, which says a lot to me...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:18 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Yeah, Niki, looks like we cross posted- I was writing my ( pretty long ) post for a long time.
I'm in the middle here as it says in my post. Leave it absolutely alone, do nothing at all, is not good policy. Seeding and some grazing is the better plan. Isn't that what Mags ( E-T-A and Kiki, both. ) was suggesting above? Some of that steer manure is a necessary fertilizer. Don't see how anybody could deny that. TOO many cows, they eat it ALL, everything, trample whatever is left into the dust, leave too much manure as I described of feedlots.

I looked into this Daggett guy too, a little. his other piece on American Thinker is a standard 2nd Amendment, pro gun piece.

But he reads like a Rush or a Beck or Hannity, or some of the folks here, spending too much time attacking liberals and Obama to be considered objective. He's got an agenda.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:34 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I'm not going to look into this guy's posts any further. He's a lightweight. Can't even understand that conservation and liberalism are not the same philosophies. Plenty of conservatives support environementalism policies, or at least some of them.

I actually wanted to respond re cattle grazing. I know that some land areas here are too ecological fragile to support cattle, and that can often end in a bun fight between landowners and environmentalists. Doesn't mean that there is a do nothing policy for damaged land.

It may well be that the land is being used as part of a controlled experiment, but that scientific talkee be too much for our author no doubt.

Me, I'm all for kangaroo meat being a staple rather than beef. Wild food, lean and tasty, numbers need to be kept under control and don't do the damage that cattle do. Should make everyone happy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:43 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Huh. Citing 65 year-old practices as "typical" of "liberalism".

I'll play. You know what conservatives thought was a good idea around 65 years ago? Setting off nukes not terribly far from downtown Las Vegas. Hell, they even had big parties to celebrate 'em.



http://io9.com/5902390/wild-vegas-parties-celebrated-atomic-bomb-tests
-of-the-1950s


Quote:

During the 1950s, the mushroom clouds from these tests could be seen for almost 100 mi (160 km) in either direction, including the city of Las Vegas, where the tests became tourist attractions. Americans headed for Las Vegas to witness the distant mushroom clouds that could be seen from the downtown hotels.
On 17 July 1962, the test shot "Little Feller I" of Operation Sunbeam became the last atmospheric test detonation at the Nevada Test Site.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_National_Security_Site

Clearly this is the modern conservative mindset when it comes to health, the environment, and hazardous waste and fallout. [/sarcasm]

Right, Jongsie?



Umm.

Mike.

Who was the President on 17 July, 1962? Who had been the President since 20 January, 1960? It wasn't a conservative.

BTW, the first tests were in 1951. Who was the President then?

Let me help you.

Quote:

Americans were in the midst of the Cold War, building bomb shelters and practicing air raid drills, when President Harry Truman selected 640 square miles in Nevada, once a part of the Nellis Air Force Base, as the Nevada Proving Grounds, the only peacetime, above ground nuclear testing site in the continental United States. It had been deemed necessary to conduct tests on nuclear devices in order to develop sufficient protection should such a device be used against Americans.

Atomic City
Las Vegans were only made aware of the impending tests two weeks before the first detonation. Although some Las Vegans were concerned about the possible dangers of such activity nearby, a major government publicity campaign and the potential for increased publicity -- and thus, increased business -- quelled many of their misgivings. As they had done with the construction of the Boulder Dam more than twenty years before, Las Vegans jumped at the chance to market themselves as a tourist attraction. As they had once touted their city as the "Gateway to the Boulder Dam," Las Vegans began promoting their hometown as "Atomic City."

A Vegas Attraction
Days after the first bomb was detonated on January 27, 1951, the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce issued a stream of press releases excitedly describing the new testing grounds as one of the many attractions Las Vegas had to offer. As one official described, "The angle was to get people to think the explosions wouldn't be anything more than a gag."




http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lasvegas/peopleevents/e_atomictourism.htm
l


So it looks like both Democrats and Republicans were equal opportunity nukers.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:53 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


And yet, nothing substantive about the article. Just more straw-mans, ad hominems, false dilemmas, the usual from the rightards.



You want facts? You can't handle the facts!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:12 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:


I actually wanted to respond re cattle grazing. I know that some land areas here are too ecological fragile to support cattle, and that can often end in a bun fight between landowners and environmentalists. Doesn't mean that there is a do nothing policy for damaged land.





Can you expound further on this matter? I had never considered that an ecosystem could be so fragile as to permit zero cattle grazing, but logically that must be true. But perhaps I over-generalized. Is Zero livestock usage required? What about wildlife? Must be some animal presence, if not initially, then as the restoration work evolves. Surely some fertilization is desirable, is it not? What do they do with such an area? Reseed and water, and then do nothing?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:29 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


There has been ongoing debate about cattle damage to land in our Alpine region.

It looks as if some regions benefit from grazing and others are damaged by it. I'm can offer you an article, but am not knowledgable enough on the subject to give you much explanation of why the difference occurs. Alas how much I do not know.

Quote:

Grazing by livestock (mainly sheep and cattle) has irreversibly degraded many natural ecosystems in Australia. Consequently, stock are usually removed from public land when new conservation reserves are declared. The damaging effects of livestock on ecosystems such as rivers, wetlands and the alps are well known.

On the other hand, ecologists have recommended that stock continue to graze in certain types of reserves. For over a decade, some National Parks in western NSW and northern Victoria have been grazed by sheep to create habitat for the endangered bird, the Plains Wanderer. In Tasmania, a number of threatened native plant species survive in grazed areas; if stock are removed the plants are smothered by thick grasses and decline. Elsewhere, short-duration (or “crash”) grazing has been recommended to control exotic (weedy) grasses and promote native plants.

In each case, grazing hasn’t been adopted because of a political compromise between production and conservation goals. Instead, it has been supported by conservation biologists to achieve specific ecological outcomes. The same ecologists have often opposed grazing in other regions (especially the alps) where grazing does not deliver desired outcomes.

How can livestock grazing benefit biodiversity conservation in these places, but not others? In each case, managed grazing creates an open habitat that is suitable for plants and animals that cannot persist beneath tall, thick grass. This mechanism is only relevant in a small number of Australian ecosystems – particularly lowland grasslands and grassy woodlands on productive soils in areas of moderate to high rainfall.

Grazing is not required to maintain diversity in all grassy ecosystems, and is rarely needed in dry, infertile sites where low fertility constrains grass growth. Indeed, a recent Victorian study found that grazing by stock and kangaroos promoted the diversity of native plants in fertile, well-watered sites, but reduced diversity in dry, unproductive areas.

If grazing is to be used for conservation purposes, a number of circumstances need to be met. Stock must preferentially eat the dominant grasses rather than other native plant species. Stock must also be controlled so they graze areas needing treatment and not other areas. In addition, being heavy, hard-footed animals, they should be excluded from wet areas where they can “pug-up” the soil. These points sound simple, but are difficult and expensive to administer in large reserves that contain many vegetation types and few internal fences.

For example, in a recent study, my colleagues and I examined how grazing affected an area containing a mosaic of wetlands dominated by native plants and grasslands dominated by exotic (weedy) plants. Unfortunately, grazing did not control the exotic plants as stock preferred to graze the lush native wetlands rather than the less palatable weedy grassland. A better outcome may have occurred if stock were restricted to the weedy grasslands. However, the cost of erecting fences around each habitat is considerable, and fences would detract from the reserve’s scenic and recreational values.

Another challenge is to develop flexible but rigorous approaches so that stock can be quickly introduced and removed as ecosystem conditions change. This is difficult in Australia’s variable climate. Usually, few (if any) stock are needed in dry periods, but large mobs are needed to control grass growth after heavy rains. Adjusting stocking levels to rapidly changing habitat conditions will always be a challenge for conservation managers and graziers.

What do we need to do before we consider using grazing for conservation purposes? First, the local problem and goals need to be clearly described (for example, “reduce cover of dominant grasses from 70% to 20%”). Infrastructure (fencing and water points) must be adequate to confine stock to targeted problem areas. Trigger points (say, levels of grass cover) must be specified to indicate when livestock are to be introduced and removed. Grazing effects must be properly monitored, including treatment and control areas. Finally, costs and benefits need to be compared against alternative treatments such as burning.

Livestock grazing has the potential to provide a useful management tool to achieve conservation objectives in some ecosystems at some times. However, the political rationale for grazing must be driven by sound ecological objectives, to ensure that “conservation grazing” is not used as an argument to extract production gains at the environment’s expense.



https://theconversation.com/can-livestock-grazing-benefit-biodiversity
-10789


The article demonstrates how Jong's blogger is seriously out of date or misinformed in his understanding of modern beliefs of conservationists.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:30 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
And yet, nothing substantive about the article. Just more straw-mans, ad hominems, false dilemmas, the usual from the rightards.



Yet when Mike brought up the Nukes near Las Vegas, which had nothing to do with the article, you were silent.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:40 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Huh. Citing 65 year-old practices as "typical" of "liberalism".

I'll play. You know what conservatives thought was a good idea around 65 years ago? Setting off nukes not terribly far from downtown Las Vegas. Hell, they even had big parties to celebrate 'em.



http://io9.com/5902390/wild-vegas-parties-celebrated-atomic-bomb-tests
-of-the-1950s


Quote:

During the 1950s, the mushroom clouds from these tests could be seen for almost 100 mi (160 km) in either direction, including the city of Las Vegas, where the tests became tourist attractions. Americans headed for Las Vegas to witness the distant mushroom clouds that could be seen from the downtown hotels.
On 17 July 1962, the test shot "Little Feller I" of Operation Sunbeam became the last atmospheric test detonation at the Nevada Test Site.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_National_Security_Site

Clearly this is the modern conservative mindset when it comes to health, the environment, and hazardous waste and fallout. [/sarcasm]

Right, Jongsie?



Umm.

Mike.

Who was the President on 17 July, 1962? Who had been the President since 20 January, 1960? It wasn't a conservative.

BTW, the first tests were in 1951. Who was the President then?

Let me help you.

Quote:

Americans were in the midst of the Cold War, building bomb shelters and practicing air raid drills, when President Harry Truman selected 640 square miles in Nevada, once a part of the Nellis Air Force Base, as the Nevada Proving Grounds, the only peacetime, above ground nuclear testing site in the continental United States. It had been deemed necessary to conduct tests on nuclear devices in order to develop sufficient protection should such a device be used against Americans.

Atomic City
Las Vegans were only made aware of the impending tests two weeks before the first detonation. Although some Las Vegans were concerned about the possible dangers of such activity nearby, a major government publicity campaign and the potential for increased publicity -- and thus, increased business -- quelled many of their misgivings. As they had done with the construction of the Boulder Dam more than twenty years before, Las Vegans jumped at the chance to market themselves as a tourist attraction. As they had once touted their city as the "Gateway to the Boulder Dam," Las Vegans began promoting their hometown as "Atomic City."

A Vegas Attraction
Days after the first bomb was detonated on January 27, 1951, the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce issued a stream of press releases excitedly describing the new testing grounds as one of the many attractions Las Vegas had to offer. As one official described, "The angle was to get people to think the explosions wouldn't be anything more than a gag."




http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lasvegas/peopleevents/e_atomictourism.htm
l


So it looks like both Democrats and Republicans were equal opportunity nukers.




Ah, the old "both sides do it" response. Tell me, were there any conservatives in power between 1951 and 1962?


As far as "The Drake" (if it isn't just made up), were there any conservatives in charge of the Forestry Service between 1946 and 2013?

If so, then are you saying conservatives have no idea how to be responsible stewards of the land?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:43 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I'm in the middle here as it says in my post. Leave it absolutely alone, do nothing at all, is not good policy. Seeding and some grazing is the better plan. Isn't that what Mags ( E-T-A and Kiki, both. ) was suggesting above? Some of that steer manure is a necessary fertilizer. Don't see how anybody could deny that.



The blog I cited, http://rightway2bgreen.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?orderby=update
d
mentions a Terry Miller, who had good success remediating mine tailings with cattle and sheep. There's quite a bit about him and his methods out on the web.

Here's a bio...

http://www.globeaz.gov/government/twheeler

and some articles...

http://www.ecoresults.org/success_wheeler.html

http://quiviracoalition.org/images/pdfs/1845-Stomp_Restoration.pdf

Unfortunately, Mr. Dagget has also written about him, which will cause some here to automatically discount his work.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:36 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Goodness, Mags, thanx for the effort. You do know plenty, certainly more than I do.

It would seem that the answer to grazing is flexibility. Some places good, some bad. I would guess that it depends on the exact conditions on the site, including what caused the problem in the first place, climate, types of animals and quantity. Sheep have a reputation here in the USA for eating everything, clear down to the bare dirt, cattle for not grazing quite so closely. And one cow per acre is one thing, 500 per acre quite another. I would guess that the solutions vary as well, some areas just a season of rest others a mix of more water, reseeding, and controlled regulated usage.

Seems I remember that in the old, small farms days here in the USA, smart farmers rotated things: wheat in one field; pasture in another; a third crop in a third, often legumes that fix nitrogen back into the soil; then rotate 'em from one year to another. One use takes out one element, but replenished another, the next reverses the process.

'Course, that's too much trouble for 21st century agribusiness-- "Hey, What we do here is chickens, or beef, or wheat, or cotton, or whatever, square miles of it, and we don't do nothin' else. Ain't no profit in anything else. And we sure don't need NO government regulatin' bureaucrats to tell us different."

Which is of course a really bad attitude for the eco-system.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:00 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Seems I remember that in the old, small farms days here in the USA, smart farmers rotated things: wheat in one field; pasture in another; a third crop in a third, often legumes that fix nitrogen back into the soil; then rotate 'em from one year to another. One use takes out one element, but replenished another, the next reverses the process.

'Course, that's too much trouble for 21st century agribusiness-- "Hey, What we do here is chickens, or beef, or wheat, or cotton, or whatever, square miles of it, and we don't do nothin' else. Ain't no profit in anything else. And we sure don't need NO government regulatin' bureaucrats to tell us different."

Which is of course a really bad attitude for the eco-system.



Of course, back in the good old days of the small family farm, Americans spent 25% of their income on food. it's now around 10%. http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2010/07/03/as-share-of-income-amer
icans-have-the-cheapest-food-in-history-and-cheapest-food-on-the-planet
/

Not to say that there aren't problems with large-scale agriculture that need to be addressed, but turning back the clock won't work on a large scale. There's probably a place for small farmers in the locavore and organic markets, but they will only be feeding a small - and relatively well-off - precentage of the food consumers.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:18 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:


Seems I remember that in the old, small farms days here in the USA, smart farmers rotated things: wheat in one field; pasture in another; a third crop in a third, often legumes that fix nitrogen back into the soil; then rotate 'em from one year to another. One use takes out one element, but replenished another, the next reverses the process.

'Course, that's too much trouble for 21st century agribusiness-- "Hey, What we do here is chickens, or beef, or wheat, or cotton, or whatever, square miles of it, and we don't do nothin' else. Ain't no profit in anything else. And we sure don't need NO government regulatin' bureaucrats to tell us different."

Which is of course a really bad attitude for the eco-system.



Yes, I agree. I think its the corporate, largescale farming that can do the most damage, because they have to wring their dollar's worth out of very last millimetre of land. Yes, it produced cheaper food, but at what actual cost?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:18 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:


Seems I remember that in the old, small farms days here in the USA, smart farmers rotated things: wheat in one field; pasture in another; a third crop in a third, often legumes that fix nitrogen back into the soil; then rotate 'em from one year to another. One use takes out one element, but replenished another, the next reverses the process.

'Course, that's too much trouble for 21st century agribusiness-- "Hey, What we do here is chickens, or beef, or wheat, or cotton, or whatever, square miles of it, and we don't do nothin' else. Ain't no profit in anything else. And we sure don't need NO government regulatin' bureaucrats to tell us different."

Which is of course a really bad attitude for the eco-system.



Yes, I agree. I think its the corporate, largescale farming that can do the most damage, because they have to wring their dollar's worth out of very last millimetre of land. Yes, it produced cheaper food, but at what actual cost?



So what's your alternative, that can feed everyone without the cost of food more than doubling?


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:43 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


There are lots of solutions.

I think companies need to be held accountable for environmental damage, or better still rewarded via tax incentives to actually take care of land. Too often governments are expected to fund the cost of damage done by businesses and that includes carbon offsets. Why should we expect food to be cheap when it comes from 1000's of miles away.

It's not that we struggle to feed ourselves, and large corporations fill that niche, ie without them we would starve. They push smaller local businesses out of business, and they use their buying power to push down prices to artificial levels. Why should our food be so cheap? Supermarkets have shaped our expectations of what can be available and when, they shape how consumers eat and the same goes for fast food companies.

Quote:

The story behind the brightly lit rows of fruit and vegetables at a local Coles or Woolworths is about the corporatisation of food in Australia. It is also a story about the concentration of the food supply chain - an unprecedented power shift from small growers supplying local markets to big farmers and agents, known as ''aggregators'' and ''category captains''. In reshaping supply chains, the two supermarket companies - accounting for 60 per cent of Australia's fresh fruit and vegetable market - are reshaping the nation's agriculture, diet and understanding of what good, fresh food is.
Strawberry farmer Joe Pignataro.

Strawberry farmer Joe Pignataro. Photo: Angela Wylie

In many ways, the consumer has been the winner, as the supermarkets have improved product freshness and passed on cost savings by cutting out the wholesale middlemen such as the market traders. But critics warn that the move to a more corporate system narrows the choice of products, increases environmentally damaging, industrial-scale agriculture and makes the food supply vulnerable to climate shocks and rising fuel prices.

''We have to stop this race for the cheapest and nastiest and basically corporatised agriculture. [It] leaves us culturally poor," says renowned Mildura-based chef Stefano de Pieri. "It means we will end up with three types of grapes, two types of oranges, one type of cheese. That's the thing that worries me; when you sacrifice prices you sacrifice all of that richness, which is cultural, which is community, which is tradition, which is gastronomy."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/does-the-food-business-stack-up-2012060
3-1zq0j.html#ixzz2U7PpweCf



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:54 AM

REAVERFAN


Yep. You lost me at American Thinker. Useless.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:53 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

Of course, back in the good old days of the small family farm, Americans spent 25% of their income on food. it's now around 10%. http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2010/07/03/as-share-of-income-amer
icans-have-the-cheapest-food-in-history-and-cheapest-food-on-the-planet
/

Not to say that there aren't problems with large-scale agriculture that need to be addressed, but turning back the clock won't work on a large scale. There's probably a place for small farmers in the locavore and organic markets, but they will only be feeding a small - and relatively well-off - precentage of the food consumers.




I agree with those conclusion generally, even tho' I'm still eating the same "spaghetti for 3 days to stretch one pound of hamburger" diet I ate in the 70's as a minimum wage college-student. And that pound of HB cost 89 cents back then, not $ 2.50. And it's a good thing that food prices haven't climbed as fast as some parts of the cost of living: my rent has gone up 10-fold since then, price of gas up by 20 x, insurance, medical care, all those stats, boring but true.

But I also agree with Mags-- it won't matter if the short term price stays down, while we do expensive damage to the environment. Plenty of evidence that some agri-business practices do that.

And no, I don't know a solution. Simple enough to say, "Have ag-biz be more responsible for the Earth," but I don't run one, so I can't make 'em do that.
E-T-A: gotta remember from some TV show/ movie I saw once or twice"After we used up the Earth-That-Was, we found more, new Earths." Either we better start working harder on that, and building the ships to take us there, or we oughtta work on using it up more slowly, if we can.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:24 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


"Everything Magons said." I thank you, too, Magons; I knew most of that, but it's always valuable to have it brought to our attention again. I have no answers, except for holding corporations of all kinds accountable for the damage they do, which, in the auto industry for example, has helped them innovate to do LESS damage. But as those here know, I gave up on hoping people would wake up a while back and accepted tipping point...along the lines of
Quote:

gotta remember from some TV show/ movie I saw once or twice"After we used up the Earth-That-Was, we found more, new Earths." Either we better start working harder on that, and building the ships to take us there, or we oughtta work on using it up more slowly, if we can.

The difference for me is I don't hope we build those ships and would prefer we live or die here by our own intelligence or lack thereof. I'm not crazy about the idea of us just "moving on" when we've fouled our own nest, as mankind has done throughout history. JMHO.

Alternatively, I'd ADORE it if we started waking up before billions and billions of people suffer and die...I just don't see it happening.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 23, 2013 11:38 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


But I would like Mal to be my captain ;)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:24 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
along the lines of
Quote:

gotta remember from some TV show/ movie I saw once or twice"After we used up the Earth-That-Was, we found more, new Earths." Either we better start working harder on that, and building the ships to take us there, or we oughtta work on using it up more slowly, if we can.

The difference for me is I don't hope we build those ships and would prefer we live or die here by our own intelligence or lack thereof. I'm not crazy about the idea of us just "moving on" when we've fouled our own nest, as mankind has done throughout history. JMHO.

Alternatively, I'd ADORE it if we started waking up before billions and billions of people suffer and die...I just don't see it happening.



Sadly, even if we start Yesterday, those ships are far, far in the future. We're gonna be here for my lifetime and my children's as well.

Inevitably, we will wear this planet out... May be 500 years, may be longer, but someday the Second Law of Thermodynamics will win out. I don't callously advocate using this place up and then just abandoning it, but we need to move toward a goal of expansion. That which lives grows, or declines and dies. It may grow, or be pruned and re-grow, but it must, and doing that will use up some stuff. Sooner or later, everything will run out.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 09:39 - 2070 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL