BTW- farmers and ranchers are STILL required to exercise "due diligence"
in regards to livestock. Your insurance company can probably fill you in better
if you ask them.Farmers/ranchers don't (god forbid)want you to
hit their livestock any more than you want to!
Several misconceptions here. First: Private property rights. When
someone owned a piece of property and someone (govt) decides to put a road
across it, THEY are responsible for securing the road. Many of the
farms/ranches that were criss-crossed back in the 30's, 40's and
50's were put in by the state or with federal $$$. At that time they were
required to fence it (as part of the easement process.) MANY times over the
years farmers wind up repairing the stock fence so they don't have to wait
for the state/federal govt. to do it for them. Its also usually quite easy as
long as the problem gets identified early.Second: Roads that were
built over existing federal ground (BLM, forest service) ground almost always
have at least minimum stock fences. If there isn't one; the area probably
isn't open to grazing. The BLM also doesn't want their wild horses
getting on the road!I strongly suspect that someone (unfortunately)
who sees or, worst case, hits an animal on the road the animal probably got out
of the fence a LONG ways from where it was seen. Call local sheriff
IMMEDIATELY, if not sooner.
Redshirt,Many rangeland wildfires occur in areas overrun by cheatgrass, an
exotic invasive that burns like gasoline and that cattle don't find very
palatable and therefore do a poor job controlling. And cattle have nothing to do
with forest fires; that's logging and fire suppression policy. Perhaps you
were referring to a study you could share with the rest of us?
Wow, redshirt. I guess I can make the argument that we should spend
more on education, pre-school and after school programs as well as government
paid secondary education and healthcare since they reduce more expensive
consequences to society such as incarceration and emergency room care that goes
unpaid.I'm arguing against hypocrisy from the right. Don't
take a government check and then complain about welfare queens and public
To "Screwdriver" you can generate revenue for the US government by
charging ranchers to graze their cows on public lands, or you can pay more for
forest fires when the grasses and such catch fire in a lightning storm during
the summer.So, which do you think benefits US tax payers more? The
government charging the ranchers for grazing rights, and preventing forest
fires, or more expensive forest fires?
They feed their cattle n public land and if they don't they feed them
subsidized corn - then they vote republican and spout off about welfare queens
and people on the dole.There are lots of Welfare Queens and 47% that
don't pay taxes - it just turns out that most of them are republicans in
republican states projecting their own flaws onto others they would like to
blame everything on. Cut off the AG subsidies! Why would we
subsidize inedible feed corn but not perfectly edible broccoli and green beans?
Places were cattle were not grazed have a higher rate of fires than cattle.
There is such a thing as overgrazing that is when farmers move cattle. Grazing,
logging and mining is what helps the land that it is used on. For fenced in of
course if you graze there need to keep cattle in. Just a few that always find a
way out. Electric fences when power goes out can also be a hazard.
I agree. Time for the responsibility to shift to the cattle owner. If you
can't keep 'em in, don't have 'em.
And in other places where cattle graze for almost nothing on public lands,
taxpayer dollars are subsidizing ranchers when the Feds build fences for
them.But it's an ENTITLEMENT they have.(Shhh.
Saying something like will upset them. Especially if they belong to the Tea
higv,Open range cattle policy in the west is different from farmers
keeping livestock fenced in on private lands. Public lands ranchers are not
required by law to keep cattle off many roadways crossing BLM and Forest Service
lands in the west. That is what the letter writer is referring to.
Most farmers do a good job of putting fence up and repairing it. There are some
cows however that no matter how green the grass is or clean the water is
can't be kept in no matter what. There are some bad farmers out there but
for the most part they do what they can to keep there cattle fenced in.
The cherry on the sundae is that you are financially liable for any cow you hit,
doesn't matter how dark the night or how blind the curve. This
shouldn't be surprising, though, as ranching interests are strongly
protected in government and revered in culture. Taxpayers subsidize something
like 80% of the cost of ranching on public lands, despite their image as rugged
independents, and despite the damage they have historically done to rangelands.
The best I can say is that it beats suburban sprawl, but that's not saying