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?

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.

Gin and tonic with...pizza?!? Not root beer?

The problem is that they are wild and inaccessible. The original "parents" were domesticated, and had some training in being herded out seasonally. If it made economic sense, they would have been rounded up by the foreclosing bank back in the 70's, but the bank was the second deadbeat with regard for being responsible for their property.

They won't be wasted, though - Ma Nature will take care of that. Feeding the wilderness with their carcasses will be a small compensation for the damage those cows have done to the environment over the decades.

I suspect feral pigs are much much worse.

inre feral hogs .... according to friend of mine, they are good eating.

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.

On the subject of wild pigs…

"Only a few animals are large enough to prey on hybrid and feral pigs, and are too few in individual numbers to control their population."
(WIKI)

---And that is because for the last few decades...nay, for over a half century, American towns and suburbs have steadily eradicated those larger predators thanks to their drive to convert every available acre of wilderness into another "Pleasantville" style plastic neighborhood that is safe for Muffy and Junior to ride their Big Wheels.

Big real estate developers can't be bothered to do studies about the surrounding environment and couldn't care less about the impact of their projects, and town and city council members will do just about anything to stem the tide of angry NIMBYS who want all scary wild animals removed from their shiny new strip mall paradise.

And so, the apex predators disappear and naturally, the next figure on the totem pole takes over.
And those are your feral hogs and pigs in some cases, and in others it's the coyote, like it is out here in Southern California.

To borrow from the old classic song by Spirit: "It's Nature's way of telling you, something's wrong."

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

Plenty of large predators enjoy pork.
We just have to let them go back to living there and learn to deal with the risks or stop building residential communities in former wilderness areas.

One nice thing about those feral hogs is that they are quite happy to take care of any homeless people you have sleeping rough, or even little Muffy or Junior wandering about in rural areas. I wonder how many missing folks have been consumed by them in the US. They leave no evidence behind unless biologists start doing DNA analysis on pig droppings.

Unless they're sleeping rough where there are crops....meh.
But yes it's a fact that feral hogs HAVE eaten humans.