[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [pct-l] Re: Defiant rancher once more loses grazing case, may now go to ...
- Subject: Re: [pct-l] Re: Defiant rancher once more loses grazing case, may now go to ...
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:45:28 EST
Tom and Carl,
You two have way too much time on your hands to spend in total violent
agreement on this list!
I prefer to argue against stupid cow logic with science. It is amazing but
that is what is generally driving environmental legislature in this country.
It is amazing because that was not always the case.
Point in case: The Pacific Fisheries Commission (or some such named
authority, don't crucify me if I recalled this wrong), the authority that
sets commercial fishing limits on the West coast recently reversed itself
after 25 years of ignoring the scientific evidence to recognize that human
fishing can effect the survival of once abundant fish species. In the face
of serious decline of numerous species it has just now begun to set limits
and put certain areas off limit to commercial fishing. It has held the
belief since evidence of species decline was scientifically tied to
commercial fishing in the 1970s that fish species were so abundant and
diversified and widely spread that commercial fishing could never threaten
their survival.
A recent study I saw a description of pointed to the serious decline of
wetland flora and fauna in the Western U.S. wherever cattle grazing was
allowed on public lands. The cattle naturally seek out and reap the most
succulent plants in and around streams, creeks, rivers, meadows, swamps,
etc., and thereby removes the cover and diversity of plants that local fauna
require. The entire ecosystem slowly degrades over time until erosion
accelerates and sediment loads increase downstream filling in the dams faster
(hmmm . . . maybe not such a bad thing on second thought ;-) Migrant birds
disappear, silent Spring ensues and then, oh God, AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
I haven't seen any similar studies released about the massive decline of any
area, flora or fauna due to backpackers. That's not to say they don't exist.
And I have seen my share of campsite areas in the Sierras that show serious
impact from backpackers. It IS a matter of degree of impact.
If the science and economics don't make sense to the public trust then I
believe the practice should be stopped.
Best regards,
Greg "Strider" Hummel
PS: I rejoice at the removal of the commercial pack station from Yosemite. I
guess they thought that this is incompatible with the natural setting, even
in light of the historical value that horses have brought to the Valley.
* From the PCT-L | Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html *
==============================================================================
To: pct-l@edina.hack.net