Capitol Hill Blue Forums Thread Like Summary - Sacred Cows

Here's a head scratcher

Are "cattlemen" closet Hindus?

A permittee (think the Bundy's) went bankrupt in the 1970s and left what remained of his herd in the Gila Wilderness (yes, there are grazing permits in wilderness areas). Many of those cows survived and had children who had children, who also had children. Even though no one owns these cows, and they are trashing the riparian areas, the cow-boys are adamant that they must not be eliminated.

This has been a decades long struggle, filled with lawsuits, acrimony, and yes - a few death threats.

Ms Howes, the newest Forest Supervisor, has been tasked with closing the case. She is a budding advocate of my forest restoration work, a surprisingly rare example in the Forest Service (I'll not go there). She has been taking the advice (and legal assistance) of Mr. Schulke (of the Center for Biological Diversity) with whom I had gin and tonics with pizza the other night to get the full backstory.

None of the cow-boys has been willing to take on the task of rounding up these now wild cows (the branded or tagged ones have been dead and gone, lo these many long years), even if they got paid to do it and were allowed to keep the cows (3/4 million rugged acres is a hard place to round up wild cows). The latest stalling tactic is that some of another rancher's branded cows may have wandered off and taken up with the wild ones, so it would be illegal for the Forest Service to shoot them.

It seems to me that if those speculative cows were illegally in the wilderness then the rancher would owe penalties and fees until he removed them himself. But NO, they want the FS to bear the cost of removal and identification of the possible personal property of the irresponsible stockman.

The ploy de grace is the invocation of an obscure 100 year-old law that maintains "estray" cattle to become the property of the State Sacred Cow Authority (State Livestock Board) in the event that no one steps up to claim ownership. There is even legislation being proposed (by another conservative [censored] that I have the displeasure of knowing) to fund said Board with $500,000 to pay for the bureaucratic process of taking ownership of estray cattle - which still demands that the USFS bear the costs of removal from the wilderness.

It seems to me that if the State assumes ownership, then they also assume liability for continued violation of a number of federal laws, but no one wants to talk about that.

What's this all really about? Just another example of the incomprehensible insanity of Conservatives?

On the subject of wild pigs…

According to the article, jaguars prefer feral pigs to javalina, maybe this is a good opportunity to beef "pig" up the jaguar populations?

I don't know anything about the legal aspects and all typed comments are from an ignorant person.

When I first red story, I had idea it was shoot and compost. Are they good to eat? If so, is it economical to gradually slaughter and distribute through food assistance programs, like SNAP or schools?

For those ranchers who allow their stock to remain off ranch ... too bad.

They are good eating but you run the risk of much more in the way of parasites, so pick your feral hog carefully, and inspect it carefully, and cook it thoroughly. Yes of course all meat carries the risk of parasites but if you can control what they eat, you can mitigate that issue somewhat whereas with a feral hog, you can't.