Sorry, but cattle don't eat the tall old grass. They go for the new,
tender grass if they can get at it. And they rarely if ever eat weeds.
JoeCapitalist2,Buried within your bad-natured distortions are
several very good points. First, Al Gore is a hypocrite, and you're right
that he has spent a lot of time promoting environmental goals he himself is not
living. Second, this can be seen to a lesser extent in most mainstream American
environmentalists. You can't really be an environmentalist and live a First
World life. Even a modest American lifestyle is very ecologically damaging. But, you are certainly guilty of projecting the worst possible
motivations to people who are only trying to improve the world in the way they
would like to see it improved. Just like everyone else. Accusing them of having
no other motivation than power and money is just as bad as me accusing a
capitalist of having no other motivation in life than power and money. Get off
your high horse and try to understand where people are coming from.
procuradorfiscal,The research cited in the report was from numerous
studies conducted over a period of several decades, and the results have nothing
to do with the proposal to list Gunnison as a separate species that you spent
several breathless, ranting paragraphs yelling about. Since you don't
believe there are 2 species, then the research results must apply to the birds
in Utah, yes? Bad cattle grazing practices helped drive this species toward
extinction, and that contradicts Mr. Jones's claims. That was the extent of
my point."And, BTW, the real experts are people like Carl
Jones"Do you even know who he is? I'll allow that those who
live on the land can have valuable perspective, but judging from the condition
of many rangelands in the West, it is safe to say a good number of ranchers have
no expertise in ecology. Or they willfully don't use their expertise.
Re: "I would like to save these birds. If experts agree . . . ."They don't.And, BTW, the real experts are people like
Carl Jones, who wrote the original letter, and those who live, day-in, day-out,
on the land with these birds. NOT politically-motivated, agenda-drive academics
and EPA bureaucrats.
I would like to save these birds. If experts agree with this solution,lets do it.
Irony Guy: I never said that there are no individuals or even groups who care
deeply about sage grouse, national park lands, whales, oil spills, or a ton of
other causes.What I am saying is that the majority of people you see
in the news demonstrating, filing lawsuits, and harassing business - don't
really care about those things more than they care about money, power, and in
general - being a big pain.They are like televangelists who make
millions preaching the gospel but don't really believe or try to live the
things they are preaching.
Re: ". . . a US Fish and Wildlife Service report on sage grouse cites a
bunch of research literature . . . ."Yeah -- that would be the
one dated January 11, 2013, in which the Service disingenuously proposes to
separate out the "Gunnison sage-grouse" from all other Western sage
grouse, so it can illegally fast-track its ESA designation as endangered,
stopping Utah energy exploration immediately, rather than having to wait until
2015, when the real sage grouse study is due.I defy any EPA or FWS
bureaucrat to distinguish between our sage grouse and any others in the West.They're NOT separate species, of course. But, since it's
important to East-bench elites and back-East bureaucrats to create a crisis to
justify fast-tracking their freedom and prosperity-destroying scams, they just
lie, and say they are.Your tax dollars at work!
Well, Joe, I'm a liberal and I do care about the sage grouse. So there.
Well said, JoeCapitalist2. Too bad they didn't pay as much attention to
the indians. Why not import the Gunnison Sage Grouse to a reservation where
there is no human or pedator activity. How much time and money are the
environmentalists willing to spend on research, studies, plans and hearings?
One of the biggest lies being perpetrated on the public these days is that most
"environmental groups" primarily care about wildlife, nature, or the
environment. These things are merely tools for them to promote their
anti-business and anti-energy agenda and to gain a lot of power and money in the
process.Look at Al Gore. If anyone thinks this guy cares one bit
about pollution or the sea rising they need their head examined. It was always
about doing or saying whatever gave Al more power and money. He never did
anything to sacrifice his own comfort in order to reduce his own "personal
carbon footprint". Unfortunately, he is the rule instead of the exception.
Sage Grouse make a great diet for the eagles and the ravens love their eggs.
Keep importing the grouse. The question is: will they live long enough to lay
I'm guessing Mr. Jones didn't get this information from a credible
source, because a US Fish and Wildlife Service report on sage grouse cites a
bunch of research literature that contradicts his claims. The cited
research shows that sagebrush and wet meadow habitat fragmentation and loss is
the primary reason the species is declining. This habitat loss is due to human
activities including invasive species introduction, the resulting wildfires,
energy development, CATTLE GRAZING, urban expansion, and agriculture. Read the habitat requirements for this bird and then take a walk out on
western public lands that have been overgrazed to see if it meets any of the
criteria. Because "overgrazed" IS cattle at their "historic
Re: "Do-gooders living in the eastern U.S. think that they know how to save
wildlife."Oh, it's worse than that, Carl. Those
"do-gooders" aren't really even all that interested in wildlife.
They just want to turn the entire West into an uninhabited, undeveloped
playground and petting zoo for liberal East-bench, back-East, and Left-coast
elites.Their primary interest in grouse is as a tool to block energy