• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A BLM Issue Ranchers should be behind!

A

Anonymous

Guest
Utah ranchers sue BLM, demand removal of wild horses




By kristen moulton

| The Salt Lake Tribune


First Published May 01 2014 09:37 am • Updated 7 hours ago

Thirteen ranchers in southwestern and central Utah are asking a federal judge to order the Bureau of Land Management to control the burgeoning number of wild horses that share the range with their cattle and sheep.

A lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City names Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, BLM Director Neil Kornze and BLM Utah Director Juan Palma as defendants.


The ranchers, angry about BLM requests that they slash their herds (or the herds’ time on the range) in half, formed the Western Rangeland Conservation Association this winter, pooling their money to bring the lawsuit. The Utah Farm Bureau Federation, national Public Lands Council and Iron and Beaver counties also have pledged money to pay for the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges the BLM has failed to comply with the Wild Horses and Burros Act of 1971 by not controlling the number of wild horses on BLM rangeland as well as on private and state lands.

The ranges are deteriorating as wildlife, horses and livestock compete for scarce grasses, brush and water, the ranchers say.

Horses have damaged range improvements made by ranchers, such as fences, springs and other water developments, the lawsuit says, and ranchers have had to haul extra water and feed to their animals as well as cut back on their grazing.


"Many plaintiffs have maintained their livelihoods via ranching operations for multiple generations. Due to economic limitations and the fact that the wild horses are federally protected, plaintiffs can do nothing to prevent damages to their private and the public rangelands," the lawsuit says.

Mark Wintch, a rancher in the Wah Wah Valley west of Milford, is president of the rancher association. "We’re simply asking that they stay within their own management plan and quit abusing us," Wintch said.

The BLM acknowledges there are 14,000 more wild horses in the West than the ecosystems can maintain, but pleads poverty in regards to doing anything about them.

The agency announced last year that it would not do roundups this year because it lacks the money, particularly for long-term pasturing of wild horses.


By congressional decree, they can’t be euthanized.


The BLM’s own target numbers for wild horses in the West is 26,000, but there are now nearly 40,000, the agency says on its website.

Even though the agency said it has no plans to round up horses this year, state BLM directors, under pressure from ranchers and local leaders, are asking to remove more than 6,000.

Utah’s Palma wants more than $500,000 to remove more than 1,000 horses from BLM, private and School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration lands in Iron and Beaver counties this summer.

Two of the lawsuit plaintiffs graze their livestock in Emery County, where wild horses in the Muddy Creek herd management area also are over the BLM limits.

In Beaver and Iron counties, where most of the plaintiffs live and ranch, the BLM’s own prescribed limit on horses is just over 600.

Ranchers say there are thousands of horses, however, and it now appears, from internal and environmental assessment documents, that BLM acknowledges at least 1,800 horses on and outside the nine herd management areas in that region.

The lawsuit points to the wild horse act’s requirement that the BLM inventory set limits and "immediately remove excess animals from the range so as to achieve appropriate management levels."

Karen Budd-Falen, a Cheyenne, Wyo., attorney representing the ranchers, said Thursday that similar lawsuits are being prepared for Wyoming and New Mexico ranchers. "The BLM has got a statutory duty to move," she said.

Kiersty Loughmiller, of Salt Lake City, is the Utah attorney for the ranchers. Judge Paul Warner was assigned to the case.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57890048-78/horses-blm-ranchers-wild.html.csp




Now here is an issue ranchers should be taking on and backing- these honest fee paying ranchers getting run off their grazing allotments because of all these wild horses and BLM's refusal to take care of the situation...
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Utah ranchers sue BLM, demand removal of over reaching horses a$$es on sovereign land.

Fixed.


By the way, I posed this question to you:

If someone claims to not believe in a grazing law and does not follow that grazing, under your way of thinking, are they in the right?


In this thread:
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=70238&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
 

Ho55

Well-known member
I agree with these ranchers and their lawsuit. Now what if the BLM refuses to move these horses, cuts these ranchers AUMs til it's not worth running cattle. Then says no cattle grazing at all. And then one rancher says to hell with the BLM and runs his cattle anyway. What do you have? Cliven Bundy.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
iwannabeacowboy said:
Utah ranchers sue BLM, demand removal of over reaching horses not nicees on sovereign land.

Fixed.


By the way, I posed this question to you:

If someone claims to not believe in a grazing law and does not follow that grazing, under your way of thinking, are they in the right?


In this thread:
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=70238&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

A duly legislated law is the law until it is overturned by a court or altered/amended by future legislation...
Just because you don't believe in or like a law does not mean it is not legal... I hate the seat belt law- but that doesn't make it illegal...

By the same token - just because you feel a law is unconstitutional does not make it so... It is considered law and constitutional until ruled unconstitutional by a duly authorized court...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Every duly legislated law is not just.

Yep- that's what we have courts and appellate courts to decide/overrule on -- and we have elections to put in new legislators if we want to amend/repeal the law ...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Maybe the Federal government not owning state lands should be an issue that Ranchers take on and should be backing.

Back the Constitution, and that 200 yr old precedent, that used to be... before modern courts started to interpret the Constitution...for the benefit of lobbying/big business environmental groups :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Maybe the Federal government not owning state lands should be an issue that Ranchers take on and should be backing.

And that right there will split the ranch community in every which direction... Many ranchers do not want to give up their public land lease allotments as in some cases not only do they have a lot of money invested getting them- but those allotments essentially make up the ranch which doesn't have much deeded land and is the equity they planned to retire on by selling..

And you have the other bunch of ranchers that don't have any public land allotments- or live in areas with no public land- where some of them look on these leases as "government subsidies"...

And then you throw in the side of the hunters, bunny huggers, environmentalists, recreationists, hikers, boaters, etc., etc.- that don't want their access to "public lands" hindered in any way- and I don't see any changes happening soon....
I've heard all the same talk for 50+ years...
My Dad and uncles didn't buy a ranch that was offered to them back in the mid-60's because it had a large amount of public lands they feared would be put into a wilderness area... As it turns out they were both right and wrong- never did get put into wilderness area- but still under study for it (with current owners now worrying about losing their investment)...And access and allotments have been cut during the years...
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
iwannabeacowboy said:
Utah ranchers sue BLM, demand removal of over reaching horses not nicees on sovereign land.

Fixed.


By the way, I posed this question to you:

If someone claims to not believe in a grazing law and does not follow that grazing, under your way of thinking, are they in the right?


In this thread:
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=70238&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

A duly legislated law is the law until it is overturned by a court or altered/amended by future legislation...
Just because you don't believe in or like a law does not mean it is not legal... I hate the seat belt law- but that doesn't make it illegal...

By the same token - just because you feel a law is unconstitutional does not make it so... It is considered law and constitutional until ruled unconstitutional by a duly authorized court...

Great, your saying that because one does not recognize or follow the law, they should still be held accountable when they break the law. The law is a standard. Not recognizing it does not remove the standard.

Then why do you hold to the belief that being a liberal removes them from being held to our societal moral standards and moral laws?

If society created our legal standard, and that holds credibility, why would the same societies' moral standards hold any less credibility?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Maybe the Federal government not owning state lands should be an issue that Ranchers take on and should be backing.

And that right there will split the ranch community in every which direction... Many ranchers do not want to give up their public land lease allotments as in some cases not only do they have a lot of money invested getting them- but those allotments essentially make up the ranch which doesn't have much deeded land and is the equity they planned to retire on by selling..

And you have the other bunch of ranchers that don't have any public land allotments- or live in areas with public land- where some of them look on these leases as "government subsidies"...

And then you throw in the side of the hunters, bunny huggers, environmentalists, recreationists, hikers, boaters, etc., etc.- that don't want their access to "public lands" hindered in any way- and I don't see any changes happening soon.... I've heard all the same talk for 50+ years...
My Dad and uncles didn't buy a ranch that was offered to them back in the mid-60's because it had a large amount of public lands they feared would be put into a wilderness area... As it turns out they were both right and wrong- never did get put into wilderness area- but still under study for it (with current owners now worrying about losing their investment)...And access and allotments have been cut during the years...

Why do you assume the states will do any thing different than the Feds, as far as management, except for cutting out a "middle man"?

Why do you want to send your tax dollars to DC, to have siphoned off, and then distributed back to the states?

In Canada, we have privatised many a government agency, only to see our costs go down, and our service level go up.

Whatever happened to the local "input/management" groups that the BLM was legislated to refer to?

Bundy used to even belong to one of those local "owner management groups"

OT...why are you unwilling to progress, why the negative attitude to positive change?

Is it because, "it's always the way it has been done", even though a new way might save taxpayer's money, and not allow the Feds. to steal as much money?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
iwannabeacowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
iwannabeacowboy said:
Fixed.


By the way, I posed this question to you:

If someone claims to not believe in a grazing law and does not follow that grazing, under your way of thinking, are they in the right?


In this thread:
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=70238&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

A duly legislated law is the law until it is overturned by a court or altered/amended by future legislation...
Just because you don't believe in or like a law does not mean it is not legal... I hate the seat belt law- but that doesn't make it illegal...

By the same token - just because you feel a law is unconstitutional does not make it so... It is considered law and constitutional until ruled unconstitutional by a duly authorized court...

Great, your saying that because one does not recognize or follow the law, they should still be held accountable when they break the law. The law is a standard. Not recognizing it does not remove the standard.

Then why do you hold to the belief that being a liberal removes them from being held to our societal moral standards and moral laws?

If society created our legal standard, and that holds credibility, why would the same societies' moral standards hold any less credibility?


I have never seen the standardized moral laws of the U.S... Could you provide me a copy?
 

Mike

Well-known member
The Universal Moral Code



The Universal Moral Code is a list of fundamental moral principles that can be found throughout the world. The code incorporates basic, universal ideas about how we should live and how we should treat each other. Living these principles can provide each of us with the meaning that comes from living our values and doing what's right.

The code is divided into two complementary sets of statements. The first set consists of negative statements about not doing harm, while the second set consists of positive statements about doing good.

DO NO HARM.

Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you.
Do not lie.
Do not steal.
Do not cheat.
Do not falsely accuse others.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not commit incest.
Do not physically or verbally abuse others.
Do not murder.
Do not destroy the natural environment upon which all life depends.

DO GOOD.

Do to others what you would like them to do to you.
Be honest and fair.
Be generous.
Be faithful to your family and friends.
Take care of your children when they are young.
Take care of your parents when they are old.
Take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.
Be kind to strangers.
Respect all life.
Protect the natural environment upon which all life depends.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Sounds like the "World's Moral Laws" were based on the Bible...I wonder where the Founders got the base for the Constitution...

But, what perplexes me more, is why OT does not think ranchers are intelligent enough to manage a local "community pasture", without the Feds. getting rich off the deal????

edited to add: Sorry Martin, I was writing, when you were posting...OT, mustn`t have learned what you wrote, while at Bible college... :roll:

But, it is common sense, so maybe he didn`t learn any of that either...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Martin Jr. said:
I have never seen the standardized moral laws of the U.S... Could you provide me a copy?


Try the bible, the moral codes of the U.S. are essentially based on these writings.

And then each religion apparently is like a court- and each preacher is like a judge and they interpret and make rulings upon them :???:

Which interpretations have changed greatly from Puritan/Pilgrim days- and the Salem witch trials times...And seems to be ever evolving with the times...
BUT
Since we are a country of no national religion - then do we also add in the teachings of:

Torah (Judaism)
Quran (Islam)·
Aqdas (Baha'i)·
Avesta (Zoroastrianism)·
Bible (Christianity)·
Book of Mormon (LDS)·
Dianetics (Scientology)·
Intelligent Design (Raelism)·
Kojiki (Shinto)·
Mabinogion (Druidry)·
Ofudesaki (Tenrikyo)·
Science and Health (Christian Science)·
Tao Te Ching (Taoism)·
Tripiṭaka (Buddhism)·
Guru Granth Sahib (Sikhism)·
Kalpa Sūtra (Jainism)·
Vedas (Hinduism)
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Martin Jr. said:
I have never seen the standardized moral laws of the U.S... Could you provide me a copy?


Try the bible, the moral codes of the U.S. are essentially based on these writings.

And then each religion apparently is like a court- and each preacher is like a judge and they interpret and make rulings upon them :???:

Which interpretations have changed greatly from Puritan/Pilgrim days- and the Salem witch trials times...And seems to be ever evolving with the times...
BUT
Since we are a country of no national religion - then do we also add in the teachings of:

Torah (Judaism)
Quran (Islam)·
Aqdas (Baha'i)·
Avesta (Zoroastrianism)·
Bible (Christianity)·
Book of Mormon (LDS)·
Dianetics (Scientology)·
Intelligent Design (Raelism)·
Kojiki (Shinto)·
Mabinogion (Druidry)·
Ofudesaki (Tenrikyo)·
Science and Health (Christian Science)·
Tao Te Ching (Taoism)·
Tripiṭaka (Buddhism)·
Guru Granth Sahib (Sikhism)·
Kalpa Sūtra (Jainism)·
Vedas (Hinduism)



Is Sharia law being upheld throughout the country?
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
What is it that you do again? Wasn't there something about heading a local court?

Have you not seen anyone ever swear on a Bible for official duty or testimony?
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
What you missed again, is that our Nation was founded on the basis of a faith in a single God. What we do not have is a nationally recognized church.

You should learn the difference.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
iwannabeacowboy said:
What you missed again, is that our Nation was founded on the basis of a faith in a single God. What we do not have is a nationally recognized church.

You should learn the difference.

he can't even figure out how ranchers would go it alone, without DC changing their diapers...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
iwannabeacowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
Martin Jr. said:
And then each religion apparently is like a court- and each preacher is like a judge and they interpret and make rulings upon them :???:

Which interpretations have changed greatly from Puritan/Pilgrim days- and the Salem witch trials times...And seems to be ever evolving with the times...
BUT
Since we are a country of no national religion - then do we also add in the teachings of:

Torah (Judaism)
Quran (Islam)·
Aqdas (Baha'i)·
Avesta (Zoroastrianism)·
Bible (Christianity)·
Book of Mormon (LDS)·
Dianetics (Scientology)·
Intelligent Design (Raelism)·
Kojiki (Shinto)·
Mabinogion (Druidry)·
Ofudesaki (Tenrikyo)·
Science and Health (Christian Science)·
Tao Te Ching (Taoism)·
Tripiṭaka (Buddhism)·
Guru Granth Sahib (Sikhism)·
Kalpa Sūtra (Jainism)·
Vedas (Hinduism)



Is Sharia law being upheld throughout the country?


Nope- but neither are we holding witchcraft trials and executing folks for being witches... In Salem and some of the early colonies -where life was governed by the precepts of the Church, which was Calvinist... Instrumental music, dancing, and celebration of holidays such as Christmas and Easter, were absolutely forbidden....
Today most don't follow those beliefs... Beliefs/moral standards evolve with their popularity amongst the majority of the populace... Some individual smaller groups do maintain their beliefs as a differing moral standard- but only find acceptance within their group...
 
Top