None of those have Federal endorsement - while grazing exists it's not "proven that wildlife will dissappear without grazing" as you assert.
Unfortunately that is not what we are seeing in other conservation properties in BC. We are building cattle exclusion fences on a number of conservation properties & on crown land to mitigate the negative effects of cattle (and quads) on sensitive and over-grazed habitat.
As said three times now, grazing in moderation works. Not an 'anti-cow' guy, just think we should stick to reality.
As said we went through this exercise two years ago to find one example where grazing increased wildlife values/habitat. There was not one example provided- not one, and that issue traveled the province with habitat and range staff. The research we have indicates the opposite. There is significant concern from habitat ecologists around livestock/habitat and in particular mule deer interaction in BC. Some of the research sites have shown significant over-grazing, including deciduous shrubs (deer food) being grazed to 'ground zero' every summer.
Finally, if grazing were such a positive net benefit land conservancy organizations would be purchasing properties while ensuring cattle grazing remains in perpituity. Most of the agreements are grand-fathered whereby once the current 'family' passes on the cows are removed, OR grazing is not permitted on these properties at all. There are always exceptions, but the "rule" is not to allow grazing on conservation lands over the long-term.
This seems to be more of a beliefs based argument. Basing your argument on beliefs while ignoring the science doesn't really make for a compelling case.
Last edited by GoatGuy; 09-27-2017 at 01:33 PM.
Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.
Mandela
And yet we are doing it - weighing the trade-offs and choosing that the benefits of riparian/stream protection outweigh the economic and environmental costs of fencing. That should indicate the magnitude of the issue/concern.
Most of these issues are site specific and due to a lack of adherence to range use plans.
Anyways if you ever come up with some litt to support the earlier assertions please post. Always keen to learn.
Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.
Mandela
Originally Posted by olympia
if your worried bout ticks than you aint never been bit by a snake while pissing...try gettin your hunting partner to suck the poison out
"It's not the kill, but the thrill of the chase" - Deep Purple
"Lord knows I'm a Voodoo chile" - SRV (RIP 8-27-90)
"Know your Land, Know your Prey" - Mantracker
http://www.youtube.com/user/welderse...e=results_main
If you want to farm cattle, buy some land and do it.
I hope the government realizes how antiquated the current policies are and they kick all these free loading farmers off our land.
Not so much in response to the OP but to the anti-cow sentiment. Perhaps you are overlooking the necessity of these cattle? There are a lot of people to feed in this province, it's not sustainable if all of them go hunting. Those cattle could get raised in feedlots I guess but people don't seem to like that either and it would mean a lot more land getting put into crops.
Put another way, if each of those cows were taken off the range and replaced with another hunter (or two) do you think the hunting situation would be better?
What is the difference between him paying for grazing rights and a forester paying a stumpage fee? Both are using a resource of the province and paying the "fair market value". Sure, there should be more oversight on habitat destruction but the same can be said for forestry.
Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.
Mandela