Posted 3 months, 16 days ago in 
Loading ...
Colorado should act to protect its roadless forests, and should not rush to finalize the Bush plan that could open more of these areas to development. We should have already learned that this administration is a bad-faith partner when it comes to protecting our natural heritage here in the West.
After nearly a decade of citizens urging that the federal government act to protect the Roan Plateau, these popular public lands were turned over to the oil and gas industry last week. The average price per acre for one of Colorado’s most biologically diverse landscapes was about $2,000. This is about 1/10th the value that the drilling boosters — including Sen. Penry — all promised would come flowing from opening this sensitive habitat for industrial activity.
Now the state of Colorado might lose more of our treasured and dwindling natural lands through a last-ditch effort to open Colorado’s national forest backcountry to more logging, more drilling, and more road-building.
A proposed federal rule for Colorado’s roadless national forests leaves too many loopholes and raises too many questions to be rushed through in a poor excuse for public process. There are no public hearings being held on this proposed rule which would have significant consequences across 4 million acres of public lands. Less opportunity for public involvement is being provided in Colorado than in Idaho, the only other state engaged in this process.
In fact, should this rule be finalized — while Colorado’s attention is turned to the Democratic National Convention and summer activities — our roadless forests here could have less protection than any other state in the Lower 48. Colorado’s national forests deserve better. Gov. Ritter should demand that this issue is resolved in a manner that creates sound policy and protects our roadless forests, not according to the rushed agenda of a lame-duck administration during its last days in power.
DUKE COX
Palisade
58 Responses to “Colorado needs to act to protect roadless areas”
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 8:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What a crock!
There is nothing special about most of the Roadless areas!
Roadless is an outdated government term that needs to be replaced.
Most are not road less, in fact a large portion of them contain many roads and motorized trail systems.
If you think they are so great then it just means that they are doing just fine as multiple use managed lands.
Environmentalist like duke are using lies and deception to make the public actually think these lands are without roads and pristine in nature. This may be true for a very small pecentage of them.
Environmentalists—–the truth is not in them!
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 8:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall,
Would it surprise you to know that the environmentalists, a good portion of the atheists, the anti-war protest group, peace and justice, and voice of reason, as well as western Colorado justice for immigrants are all basically the same people? If you recall when one-voice posted, well, he sent me a lot of his information. What I don’t understand is why don’t all the different groups that oppose these people, get together? That is what they are doing. And they are kicking our butts with this roadless thing.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 8:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall said “What a crock! There is nothing special about most of the Roadless areas!”
Well there is one thing special , no hummers, atv’s, escalades, rubicons, rock crawlers, dirt bikes, or other such machines.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 9:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes, I am aware that many of these fanatics all hang together. My guess is many of them are on this site.
One reason all the good guys don’t ban together is we have have “lives”. We enjoy life and are not interested in fighting or protesting everything. We have common sense and are from here or close to here. We know how to take care of our public lands and do not need outsiders to come along and try to deceive everyone into beleiving we don’t know squat.
My moto is “if an environmental group endorses it, LOOK OUT”!
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 9:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “If you recall when one-voice posted, well, he sent me a lot of his information”
Ah the infamous black list. Do you have any idea how fringe crazy you guys sound with the odor of paranoia just reeking? Probably everyone in Trout Unlimited is on the black list. I suspect this is an organization that AP abhors since we advocate barbless hooks and no-kill fishing.
I spend a lot of time in the roadless areas of Colorado following small streams for secret trout abodes. The roads and trails I see are due almost entirely to outlaw ATV riders and ranchers running their cattle on public lands. This BLM country belongs to everyone in the USA but many ranchers through their bought and paid for senators have perpetuated the multiple use scam which allows them to rip off the rest of us. I am sick of having to avoid cow pies in what should be pristine wilderness and seeing cows instead of deer and elk in the back country.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 9:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall: “We know how to take care of our public lands and do not need outsiders to come along and try to deceive everyone into beleiving we don’t know squat.”
What a bunch of malarkey! Most of my friends in Trout Unlimited are life long residents of Grand Junction. You speak only for yourself. Your view is not shared by other Colorado natives.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 9:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm says — Well there is one thing special , no hummers, atv’s, escalades, rubicons, rock crawlers, dirt bikes, or other such machines.
WRONG PAL!
Do your homework! Grand Mesa National Forest has several Roadless areas that have jeep roads, ATV trail systems, dirtbikes etc.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 9:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You are ignorant on the issue 52!
Trout unlimited is one of those environmental groups that help spreasd the lies.
I spend more time on public lands than I do here by far. Much of it in Roadless areas on legal jeep and ATV/dirtbike trails.
Ranchers have as much right to our public lands as the do gooders in trout unlimited!
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 9:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Enough of your personal problems, Class. You should take those to a chaplain. You’ll remember those from your military career, right? By the way, are you possibly related to Vardith L. Fox? If so, I was wondering if I might get some information from you.
Ps. You should stop holding all of that anger inside. My advice is to just walk right up to one of those arrogant ranchers you are talking about and just tell him exactly what you think about him, face to face. By the way, that also has the potential of solving all of those pesky personal problems. Why not kill two birds with one stone?
Good idea, Class. I never would have thought of it. You should play chess or poker with Scott. You guys seem pretty evenly matched.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 10:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall,
From the Federal Register:
“Roadless areas are undeveloped areas inventoried on National Forests, which are without authorized roads (vehicle routes more than 50 inches wide that are constructed for full-sized vehicle use).”
Rexall said: “Roadless is an outdated government term that needs to be replaced.”
I agree it is a confusing designation. But I think your point and Duke’s points are both well taken. Your point that atv’s and dirt bikes are allowed seems to be correct. Dukes point that no new road construction for full sized vehicles are not allowed also seems to be correct. There is a disclaimer in the Federal Register that states “Where a road is needed in conjunction with the continuation, extension, or renewal of a mineral lease on lands that are under lease, or for new leases issued immediately upon expiration of an existing lease.” roads are allowed.” This would seem to not allow new roads for drilling on the Roan plateau.
Posted August 19th, 2008 at 10:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “My advice is to just walk right up to one of those arrogant ranchers you are talking about and just tell him exactly what you think about him, face to face.”
“Arrogant ranchers”?? Your term, not mine.
I have published exactly those same sentiments on more than one occasion in letters to the editor under my real name. My telephone number and address are in the telephone directory unlike certain others who hide behind their anonymity and snipe knowing they can say anything while hiding. Who knows, I may make that the subject of one of my future columns in the Free Press.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 5:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The term “undeveloped area” is deceiving in itself. These motorized routes that are in the Roadless areas receice maintenance via small bulldozer type trail dozers and new motorized trail construction is allowed.
Many of these routes used to be jeep type roads and were turned into ATV trails years ago. Some of the actual roads that are still there have become boundaries that the ATV/dirt bike trails cutoff from.
Bottom line is more than 50% of these are not pristine untouched, special places that duke and his deceiving freinds want the public to beleive.
Duke and his deceiving friends want the public to think that something needs to be done to stop roads from being put in. Well there is plenty in place already. Not anyone can go put a road in on public land. There are one heck of a lot of hoops to jump through to do it and many times it takes years to get it done.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 10:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
A developer is someone who wants a house in the woods.
An environmentalist is someone who already has a house in the woods.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 10:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall: “The term “undeveloped area” is deceiving in itself. These motorized routes that are in the Roadless areas receice maintenance via small bulldozer type trail dozers and new motorized trail construction is allowed.”
For people like Rexall whose only contact with the wilderness is on the back of a noisy dirt bike or ATV, naturally the only part they see are areas with trails. Not very long ago I caught a very nice rainbow on my fly rod on the Grand Mesa in a small stream which required a 50 minute hike (great workout for this 74 year old) through pristine, untouched high country with not a road in sight on the whole hike.
Last summer my son and I hiked to a high country lake in the Grand Mesa where we camped and fished three days which required the better part of a day through difficult mountainous terrain. Again not a road to be seen anywhere-and no people (they were all riding around on ATVs thousands of feet below and miles away.
There are plenty of places like this which I am sure are unknown to Rexall and his ilk, but they require some physical effort to get into-not a gasoline engine.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 11:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
52—you are barking up the wrong tree and out of your league on this issue!
I have personally been to almost every lake in the Grand Mesa National Forest—if not by motorized vehicle then by hiking. By the way there are not 300 lakes up there either as advertisements would have us beleive. There are many that used to be lakes, the damns breached many years ago, some do not even resemble lakes anymore.
You know what I find very interesting is some of those lakes where the only way in is by foot or horse are just as trashed out as lakes I can drive to. Don’t suppose 52 is a litter bug do ya?
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 11:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall: “You know what I find very interesting is some of those lakes where the only way in is by foot or horse are just as trashed out as lakes I can drive to. Don’t suppose 52 is a litter bug do ya?”
I don’t know what high country lakes you visit, but the ones I have hiked into are pristine. I see no trash whatsoever and I leave none. But you are making my point. You apparently agree that there are plenty of places devoid of trails and roads.
And in terms of being out of my league, you are correct that I am not in your league with respect to ATVs. I would not be caught dead on one of those noisy, pollution spewing monstrosities in wilderness areas. I value quiet and interaction with Nature, something not possible on the back of an ATV. I was a state champion long distance runner in high school and college and for most of my adult life I have been a long distance hiker.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 11:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I do agree that there are plenty of places devoid of trails and roads.
That is exactly why we do not need to close anymore trails and roads like dukes deceiving freinds advocate.
You can spin things any way you wish 52 but when it comes to public lands and what is versus what isn’t, I will always be one step ahead of you.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 12:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall,
You said;
“I do agree that there are plenty of places devoid of trails and roads. That is exactly why we do not need to close anymore trails and roads like dukes deceiving freinds advocate.”
But isn’t the issue not one of closing existing roads but actually adding new roads in these “roadless areas”?
Did you read the article in the DS today by Gary Harmon. It is a little convoluted but seems to be saying that for the most part Josh Penry agrees with Governor Ritter in opposing the new Federal regulations. FYI here is a link to an Aspen Times article that describes the grayness of the definition of “roadless”.
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20060521/NEWS/105210049
http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/stories/2008/08/19/082008_1b_roadless.html
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 1:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Your right rm, off track again.
Here is where the problem lies: dukes little freinds want a one size fits all rule to be applied to all forests the same. Anyone with any common sense should know that not all forests are the same and they should be managed at the local forest district level—-not the Washington DC level.
Most public land problems today can be traced back to the fact of too much policy coming out of washington instead of the local and district offices like it was many years ago. Used to be a whole bunch of people working at local and district level and hardly anyone in washington—-now those rolls are reversed.
Something else that is conveniently being left out is the fact dukes little friends want to turn as many Roadless areas as possible into Wilderness areas and lock it all up.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 1:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall, always remember that we only have the ‘word’ of classlessmoron as to his background in any area of his life.
His’ word’ is not worth the oxygen he wastes in giving it.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 1:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey class, the next time you wanna go for one of those hikes into the high country for a fishing trip, let me know, you can carry my extra O2 bottles and push my wheel chair so I can go too.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 1:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “Hey class, the next time you wanna go for one of those hikes into the high country for a fishing trip, let me know, you can carry my extra O2 bottles and push my wheel chair so I can go too.”
Well I go every so often, so anytime you want to go with me, let me know and we will work out something. But we would have to keep to the lower lakes since there is no way that a wheelchair could negotiate the climb into the high country.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I should just do the helicopter thing again huh? Ok, family discount is a good thing.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The point that Rexall is missing is that hunting, fishing, ATV riding can all be done on a trail no more than 50″ wide. Logging, drilling, and mining cannot. Nice to see Rexall back and in a rage. It was getting quiet around here.
Rexall likes to slam newcomers. Well, I am not a native, but my son is. I settled in Montrose in 1973, fresh out of college, and worked on a cow ranch for a couple of years. I have fixed a lot of fence and ridden drag on more than one cattle drive to and from the high country. I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck, Rexall, so let’s keep the conversation at policy. OK?
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 2:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No Duke, you didn’t fall off the turnip truck, you just perched up there and ate all the turnips you could, and all that turnip stuff infiltrated your mind. Thus the phrase ‘turnip head’ was born.
Since ‘73? Wow, and your son is a native? Wow…
My vehicles wear Pioneer Plates. Now, ask me if I’m impressed with your longevity in Colorado.
Worked on a ranch for a couple of years huh?
Boy, that’s just almost as good as growing up in a saddle isn’t it?
How many cows have you milked?
How many calves have you pulled? Foals?
Did you ever make cottage cheese in the kitchen?
Butcher your own beef and pork?
How many barns have you built or even reroofed?
Yer just such a storehouse of knowledge on western culture aintcha?
Color me impressed…..
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 3:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall Said;
“Something else that is conveniently being left out is the fact dukes little friends want to turn as many Roadless areas as possible into Wilderness areas and lock it all up.”
Staying on track again. What we are talking about is the Bush administrations acting on a regulatory process that would replace the roadless rule in this state with policies that remove current protections. In particular allowing gas and oil drilling on prime hunting and fishing land on the Grand Mesa. Are you ok with this?
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 3:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorta of like clinton, with the stroke of a pen, taking ALL the low-sulphur coal beds in Utah off the map by naming it wilderness, and giving his buddies, and campaign donors in Indonesia total control of the rest of the worlds low-sulphur coal beds?
And do we really need to go back to lies about drilling killing off all the big game in Colorado?
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 3:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall,
Maybe us old hands know something that Dc and co. don’t. On a cattle drive, drag is where you put the greenhorns. Has anybody got a question about what happens when you try to push cattle across a highway and why it happens. What members of a cattle herd always start out in front on a drive and end up bringing up the drag, when it is over?
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 3:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Sorry to butt into your conversation with DC, but…
I built a chicken house does that count?
I designed and built a milking stand for a goat and also milked the goat and made yogurt from the goat milk in the kitchen. Probably doesn’t count huh?
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 3:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“How many cows have you milked?
How many calves have you pulled? Foals?
Did you ever make cottage cheese in the kitchen?
Butcher your own beef and pork?
How many barns have you built or even reroofed?”
Willis, in order: Hundreds, both by hand and with milking machines.
half a dozen
none
nope, we made butter, I don’t care much for cottage cheese
Both, and chickens, squirrels, rabbits, quail, deer, elk, frogs, fish,
I have built three barns, re-sided one, and hung tobacco and stacked hay in dozens of others.
I grew up on a farm, Willis, but what the hell does this have to do with roadless areas? Nothing. Just a feeble attempt at discrediting me instead of discussing the policy and the issues. This is typical of you and Rexall. But I don’t mind. You need something to do.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 3:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Probably not rm, but only because you ain’t Duke.
Now ifn’ you wuz, it wouldn’t make a difference, because in the real west, he ain’t a player, just another noisy little voice with failed ideas being regurgitated for the umpteenth time.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 3:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes a_p, that’s where you put the greenhorns because it is the easist position to ride. I have also ridden the flank, but “riding drag” is so much more colorful and kind of excites some of my friends in the GLBT community when I say it.
Maybe you will get your way and your industry friends can then build haul roads all over the Grand Mesa, like they have up in Parachute Creek. Nothing like access for semi trucks to enhance that high country experience.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 3:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
How come so many barns? You keep burning them down by careless smoking when you wuz a teenager?
What do they mean when referring to a ewe as “blocked and docked”?
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 3:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I never raised …sheep.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 4:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, dc, you don’t put the greenhorn back there because it is the easiest. You put the greenhorn back there because it is the dustiest, and it takes the least experience to work drag. I have been experiencing the “high country” experience as you call it, all my life. And I appreciate a road that will get me to the area I want to go to, and what’s more, get me out. If you like to hike in, there are more than enough areas right now where you can do that. When I ride a horse somewhere it is because I am being paid to do it, and having a mountain bike come out of nowhere around a corner when you are on horseback can be a real lively experience, but I don’t mind, because that doesn’t ruin my high country experience, and neither does the reminder of civilization provided by aircraft going overhead, or the sound of cars on a road nearby. I think it is really unfortunate that some of you newcomers don’t get a chance to ride horseback for thirty five miles in a day. That would be a whole new experience for you, or should I say a chapping experience, and if by chance, you rode in, and your horse went home without you, because you had no idea how to hobble him, then the thirty five mile hike would provide a real high country experience for you. Why is it the people who complain about roads ruining their high country experience are the ones who have never had any real high country experience. I thought things went along rather well, until all the ecologists showed up. And now the high country experience for the elderly or disabled amounts to not being able to get off the paved road. I have been back in some pretty rough country, and invariably I’ll run into two or three individuals wearing shorts and carrying backpacks who need a ride out to civilization because they can’t find their camp or where they left their mountain bikes. Yeah, I would say experience is what we are looking for. Unfortunately none of the ecologists have it.
Why do you always refer to people who oppose your greenhorn ideas about the high country by calling them friends of industry? Is that an attempt to give them some interest other than what they really have? Why does everyone who disagrees with you have to be labeled as being greedy or having some connection to oil companies or God Forbid, friendly to ranchers? The way I hear it, ecologists are the ones making the big bucks. And what do they do for their money besides demonize others? You might get a lot further with your ideas if you didn’t create your own opposition by labeling or demonizing those who have lived here a lot longer than you have, and care about this country more than you do, because it has provided for generations of our families, and generations of our families are laid to rest in this land. Maybe some day you’ll understand what the real high country experience truly is, but it will take you a lifetime or maybe two or three.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 4:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From rm—What we are talking about is the Bush administrations acting on a regulatory process that would replace the roadless rule in this state with policies that remove current protections. In particular allowing gas and oil drilling on prime hunting and fishing land on the Grand Mesa. Are you ok with this?
I think the Roadless rule is totally outdated and should be done away with completely.
I am all for drilling where the gas and oil is—-does not do any good to drill where there is none. That reminds me of giving the indians desert land and asking why they are not happy.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 5:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
a-p,
You are funny! Your post # 35 had me spraying spittle on my screen. Especially the part about the mountain bikers!! Unfortunately it doesn’t jibe with my experience of the long time locals skill sets vs the newcomers skill sets.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 6:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm,
Yeah Trog, the newcomers can be, but in order for that to happen, you have to let the land decide what is harmful to it. You can’t come in with preconceived ideas, but most of all, you have to learn to live with the land, and from the land. That gives you insight and concern, and a deep abiding respect that just goes way beyond a lapel ribbon or colored bracelet, and it makes you slow down, not only to smell the flowers along the way, but also when you are talking to other people about respecting our land. The idea is not to dictate, but to educate and to make sure what you are telling people is the way it really is. That way when they remember talking to you, about the land, what sticks in their mind is the genuine reverence and truth, and that is something they will emulate when they talk to others. That is the more harmonious outcome that I keep talking about.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 7:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
a_p, You are so arrogant. I spent several years and two winters living at 10,000 feet or above with no electricity, no running water, living in a tent or mining cabin. I can build a fire faster than you can wipe your butt. I spent years living in the woods, or on a farm, or a ranch. But since I am not you, I could not possibly have learned anything useful in the process. You think you are superior to everyone else in the world who isn’t you. That is your problem, sir.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 8:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
DC: “You think you are superior to everyone else in the world who isn’t you. That is your problem, sir.”
Actually DC in my opinion AP has so few talents and accomplishments that he desperately clings to the little he knows about this world. We have already demonstrated that he knows nothing about modern agriculture so he is pushing the outdoor thing for all it is worth and claiming expertise second to none.
I am impressed that you spent two winters above 10,000 feet. That certainly dwarfs any outdoor experience I have ever had.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 8:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc - I know AP’s arrogance can be insufferable, but we should remember that both AP and Willis are truly insignificant people. They are mighty stallions when it comes to talk, but broken-down geldings when it comes to initiating any real action.
They are the true buffoons of this board, and everyone knows it.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 8:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
classlessJACKASS, it is you with no talents or accomplishments. 30 minutes out of a vehicle at a roadside rest area dwarfs any outdoor experience you may have ever dreamed of having. I think you lie just to hear the BBs in your head rattle.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 9:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc,
I knew you didn’t have the intestinal fortitude, but I did get a laugh out of your attempts to be macho. What that tells me is you know nothing about nature. The first true lesson that you learn about Mother Nature is that she doesn’t tollerate arrogance. And those that disrespect her or brag about conquering her will sooner or later be put into submission. It is obvious that you haven’t learned that lesson yet, and that makes you a danger to yourself and to others. And that can happen at any altitude.
The challenge is not conquering Mother Nature. No one can do that. It is living with her that you need to study, mi pollo poqueno.
Posted August 20th, 2008 at 10:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
C52 “This BLM country belongs to everyone in the USA but many ranchers through their bought and paid for senators have perpetuated the multiple use scam which allows them to rip off the rest of us. I am sick of having to avoid cow pies in what should be pristine wilderness and seeing cows instead of deer and elk in the back country.”
Many conservation organizations are rethinking their opposition against grazing on public lands. In order to get a permit they have to have a ranch of some type and loss of grazing would force many to sell off. These would become subdivisions out in the back 40. Grazing is considered to be the lesser of two evils by some. Also, livestock do not compete with deer for food, deer browse while livestock graze. Two different food sources.
Posted August 21st, 2008 at 6:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey dc;
I used to walk half naked to school through snow, rain, sleet—-no wait a minute that may have been the mailman.
Posted August 21st, 2008 at 7:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
sure,a_p, whatever you say.
Posted August 21st, 2008 at 7:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Does dc stand for “doesn’t Count”?
Posted August 21st, 2008 at 7:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nope, it stands for “damned cute”. Or whatever else you can come up with.
Posted August 21st, 2008 at 8:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Does the “Whatever you can come up with” extend to all users or just Alphalpha?
I would go with Diminished Capabilities.
Posted August 21st, 2008 at 8:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Feel free, Willis, have some fun.
Posted August 21st, 2008 at 9:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan: “Also, livestock do not compete with deer for food, deer browse while livestock graze. Two different food sources.”
This is an urban myth (rural myth?) which ranchers love to perpetuate. It is not true. There are literally hundreds of scientific studies which show that competition for the same food sources exists. References to just two of these are given below. The bottom line is that the more cattle grazing, the less food will be available for deer and elk.
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/eoarcunion/documents/Dietcompositiondrymatterintakeanddietoverlapofmuledeerelkandcattle.pdf
http://wildlife.tamu.edu/publications/TAEXWildlife/WILDPUBS/A080.PDF
Posted August 21st, 2008 at 9:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yeah, I saw a 4H member put a lamb out in a pasture one day, and all the other livestock and wildlife for miles around perished from starvation.
There is an old saying ’statistics never lie, but class always lies’.
Maybe that’s a paraphrase, but it’s close.
Posted August 21st, 2008 at 7:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
C52, Do you know how to read? Can you comprehend scientific studies? “This is an urban myth (rural myth?) which ranchers love to perpetuate. It is not true. There are literally hundreds of scientific studies which show that competition for the same food sources exists. References to just two of these are given below.”
Neither of these studies address the ecosystem on the western slope.
Have someone explain the data on page 11 of the first study to you. It demonstrates the difference between a grazer and a browser.
Then have someone read the second study to you and have them explain to you that there are no white tail deer on the western slope.
Do your homework or stay home!
Posted August 21st, 2008 at 9:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
sullivan: “Neither of these studies address the ecosystem on the western slope.”
Well first of all your statement was not restricted to any particular ecosystem. You said flatly:“Also, livestock do not compete with deer for food, deer browse while livestock graze. Two different food sources.”
The Oregon state study simply disproves your statement. Their conclusion was:
“Our results suggest that intra- and interspecific dietary competition may exist among mule deer, elk and cattle during the summer in secondary succession grand fir vegetation types”
So who is it that cannot read a scientific paper? Are you in fact a scientist?
Posted August 22nd, 2008 at 7:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh goody, a reading and comprehension test!
Here’s a classic test that shows the true potential of a persons capabilities.
” Willis_Leon_Johnson
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm PM This User Report this comment
typical of the generic brand of intellectual genius of the liberal folks on here.
” Nope, I do not have that problem at all. At the age of 74, I am 6 ft, 170 lbs and ride 5 miles a day on my bicycle. Although you are younger than I, I will take you on in any running or bicycling race at any time just to see which of us has to run to the bathroom first. That is if you think you can get out of your wheelchair. ”
So, you think you can outrun a person hooked to Oxygen 24/7, and spends a goodly amount of time in a wheelchair?
I doubt it moron.
________________________________________
• Classof52
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm PM This User Report this comment
WLJ: “You finally made it to nearly 75 now? Well congrats OLD man.”
Yep! Now about that bicycle race… Let’s see who is really an OLD man.
Don’t tell me you are going to chicken out? ”
Now, if one was to merely scroll past it to get to the ’smart retort’ box, major details would be missed, or ignored.
And that would make their ’smart retort’ come out totally retarded and ignorant sounding.
But, then again, it is the classless old fool.
It is true, you get what you pay for, and I never paid a dime to view his comical activities.
Posted August 22nd, 2008 at 8:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
C52 “Well first of all your statement was not restricted to any particular ecosystem.” WRONG. My statement was a response to your statement “I spend a lot of time in the roadless areas of COLORADO ….I am sick of having to avoid cow pies in what should be pristine wilderness and seeing cows instead of deer and elk in the back country.”
Neither of the papers you cite would be accepted as having any relevance in the areas that you were talking about earlier. It does demonstrate that you have a moderate competence with Google.
“The Oregon state study simply disproves your statement. Their conclusion was: Our results SUGGEST that intra- and interspecific dietary competition MAY exist among mule deer, elk and cattle during the summer in secondary succession grand fir vegetation types” Are the terms “suggest” and “may” words that are used to “disprove” any hypothesis?
I notice that you ignored the following statements from the paper that do not agree with your opinion. “Because of their anatomical and digestive attributes, mule deer were expected to have a more selective diet and choose higher quality forages than elk or cattle (Hofmann 1988). Mule deer switched their diet the least of the three herbivores in response to previous grazing by cattle or elk. This lack of flexibility in their diet could result in increased competition with elk or cattle in areas that have high ungulate or cattle densities or low forage production. Kie et al. (1991) concluded that competition between cattle and mule deer was highest during years of below-average precipitation. Austin and Urness (1986), however, concluded that deer and cattle did not compete for forage in their study area as deer use increased.” Or as a side note, “Prior cattle grazing can have beneficial effects on elk nutrition” which is opposite of your earlier opinions. I see a lot variables that need further research before any conclusion can be drawn.
Yes, my undergraduate degree was in biology. And I know enough that anyone who selects data to match their agenda is not a scientist no matter how many initials they have after their name.
Posted September 5th, 2008 at 11:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan: “The Oregon state study simply disproves your statement. Their conclusion was: Our results SUGGEST that intra- and interspecific dietary competition MAY exist among mule deer, elk and cattle during the summer in secondary succession grand fir vegetation types” Are the terms “suggest” and “may” words that are used to “disprove” any hypothesis?
Am undergraduate degree in biology does not a scientist make as demonstrated by your unfamiliarity with the language of science. Scientists nearly always talk in terms of “suggest” and “may”. Rarely does a scientist talk in terms of absolutes because science does not work this way. As Donald Prothero puts it in his book Evolution: “Scientific hypotheses must always be tentative and subject to further testing and can never be regarded as finally true or proven. science is not about finding final truth, only about testing and refining better and better hypotheses so these hypotheses approach what we think is true about the world.” The bottom line is that grazers and browsers do in fact compete for the same food, at least under certain circumstances.
Posted September 6th, 2008 at 9:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You started this out by asserting that the reason you did not see deer or elk in you went fishing in Western Colorado was because of cattle grazing. You have been able to document that when ranges in northeast Oregon get overgrazed that cattle will eat food other than grasses and try to make the leap that that is what is happening here. You through in a study of whitetail deer in Texas, totally different species, and tried make the connection to Western Colorado?!?
“The bottom line is that grazers and browsers do in fact compete for the same food, at least under certain circumstances.” That is a significant change from your statement in post #5.
A graduate degree in biology does not a scientist make as demonstrated by your unfamiliarity with the objective viewpoint that science requires.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.