Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Originally Posted by bigswede
If I read one of the articles on the matter right, some people within the BLM confesses that the ranchers make a better job of preserving the type of nature intended to be preserved.
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Boy, I'd sure like a specific quote rather than a vague recollection to establish this one. Can you clarify what "Type of nature" you seek to preserve?
Quote
I have read 10 or perhaps 20 articles on the matter only since Christmas, did not make a note at the time. But from I gathered it was mainly flora that benefits from grazing, or should we say loses out evolutionary from lack of grazing. Keeping those plants alive was the desired win. There may also be certain birds and insects that benefit.

They must find the fees objectionable, or they would pay, I imagine.

[quote=NW Ponderer] What about the cultures that pre-existed the ranchers? What about the bison that used to roam? What about the flora and fauna that are destroyed? Realistically, ranching is not dying out despite the government ownership of the land. The Bundys never owned the land their cattle graze on. What gives him a superior interest to ALL of those others?
What about them? There are programs for bringing back the bison. Nature is never destroyed. It is merely reshaped. Evolution makes sure of that. We sometimes help out, sometimes try to slow the natural process. Why can't you allow for those cultures you mentioned and the ranching culture? I can.

Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
It's not so much nostalgia, Swede, as ideological blindness. We, collectively, have brought forward reams of actual evidence to support our views in contrast to...? What, really?
If I'm blind, then so are you. Just blind for other details.

I can't seem to get the quotes right, sorry for that.

Cowardly men always plot to label Freedom as anarchy!