patrick15

[bottom line for me and the reason I chime in on posts that MENTION GRANOLA EATING FINGER POINTING TREE HUGGING PETCHULY WEARING TOFU SNACKING SANDLE SPORTING HACKY SACK PLAYING butt SITTING NO SHOWER TAKIN NAPPY ASSED HAIR HAVING HIPPIEs ,THAT HAS NOTHING BETTER TO DO-(REALY NO RESPONSABILITIES) THAN COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW MUCH OF A BITCH THEY ARE AND HOW EVERY ONE ELSE SHOULD CATTER TO THEM!! MAKE ME F@$*ING SICK!!! A little angry???? Why is it that anyone that doesnt agree with the mainstream is called these foul names?? Newbie....You should learn learn how to spell before you try to assert angry baseless opinions

"Long story short, I think it was the natural fire regime that was most important in keeping most of the plant communities in check, along with migratory (short duration, intense) grazing. Removing public lands grazing is not the answer. Tonto" Hello. The natural fire regime was altered in grasslands by not only man's fire suppression but by the livestock eating the grass that is supposed to burn. It cant carry fire unless it is present. Then, these so called "land steward" introduced cheat grass and Red Brome and left their cows to further spread them by disturbing the soil and boom.....screwed up fire regimes. Also, short duration, intense grazing is not the answer. Savory method works where it was developed......Africa where the land evolved with lots of heavy fast moving ungulates. We never had that in AZ or NM. It only compacts the soil and helps weeds establish. Removing public lands grazing is the answer. I think that it is sad that most people on this web site are ignorant of a land practice that directly impacts what they love the most...wildlife and hunting.... Let go of those John Wayne myths and educate yourself about livestock and wildlife habitat. IT SUCKS AND I AM TIRED OF MY TAX MONEY GOING TO SUBSIDIZE RANCHING. It doesnt matter what they did in the past...if you love cowboys and cows...and this myth about ranchers taking care of the land....right now..they are depleting the range of wildife forage and you are allowing it to happen! I agree with you Bowsniper...too bad everyone else seems to have their head stuck in a cowboy movie.

Ok....I'll chill. I'm sick of being labeled a redneck yahoo for being a hunter and then a bunny hugger from those that promote that image.

Yes Buckhorn, I did badmouth ranchers...not who they are but what they do to habitat and I will stand by that. The buggy hugger rhetoric is silly and makes hunter look stupid. I am embarrassed to call myself a hunter when people say stupid crap like that...and saying wildife managers have no integrity is also stupid. Is it showing integrity to make cheap shots and those who manage wildlife as a profession? Gimme a break.

What is wrong with you? What is a tree hugger? Is that the same as a bunny hugger or are they different? Your kind of rhetoric is damaging to the image of hunting. Using your creative engergy to badmouth other people who value wildlife but who have the audacity to value wildlife that they cant shoot could be better spent working together understand each other and to protect habitat. If it wasnt for wildlife managers, our wildlife would have disappearred a long time ago. What have you done for wildife other than pay for a hunting license and bad mouth "tree huggers". All people who love the outdoors value wildlife and habitat...and therefore we are out to protect the same things. Unless, you only care about your immediate ability to shoot whatever you want without any consequence or retrospection.

Have you noticed how nice the perrenial grass has recovered after most of the cattle were taken off the Tonto for the past two years? Timber Camp for example. Its never looked this good. After watching the habitat improve, I have noticed much more mule deer and whitetail in these places. I sat and watched turkey stripping seeds of a side oats gramma grass and hunted mearns quail in 24A! Mearns rely entirely on perrenial grasses to survive. Cows have completely denuded the perrenials from most of the flat areas in 24a permanently and these grasses are the first to be eaten by cows. Not to mention the forbs does need to produce fawns in the early spring and the winter browse needed in the winter. Have you noticed that most every spring in the desert is a water trough for cows! They completely denude the riparian veg that holds in the water and let the cows suck it dry...then they turn it off when the cows arent in the pasture. The only thing keeping cows off right now is the current high price. The Tonto is going to let the ranchers put hundereds each back on and the drought is far from over. These ranchers pay almost nothing to graze their cattle on public land and take forage away from wildlife! Not to mention closing access and chasing people off "their" public land. Sportsmen should be more aware of how livestock effects deer habitat. It makes me angry and hunters should be upset. and...dont say...its their way of life and they deserve it! Please. Its just a tax write off for them and the taxpayers pay the high price of range management and depleted resources. Very few of them live off their ranches. Most have full time jobs and let the cows manage themselves. Lots of them in 24A are very wealthy from other businesses and dont need to graze on public land anyway. Thanks, Patrick

just because you think that something is overgrazed, don't make it so. Yes it does. Overgrazing is overgrazing and its just not true that they are policed. If ranchers push to graze as much as they can without being punished (like you said) then maybe they shuoldnt be calling themselves "stewards of the land". Thats just a bunch of crap. Even if they were being policed ..they should be...they are using Public land. Its not theirs.

field), that are giving the rest a bad name... I would hate to see ranchers not be able to use public land, Ranchers keep fs roads relativley maintained as well as tanks and other water sources... As well as the feed they sometimes put down is available to wildlife as well as cattle... John, Supplemental feed for cattle is illegal. That is so ranchers can beat the land up anymore than they already do...past point of dirt. The thought that most ranchers are good and the minority are bad is a myth. Grazing in these arid lands is just plain bad and permanently changes the landscape for the worse. I havent been on one permit in Gila County that is well managed or not overgrazed....except those that are closed to grazing. Even after removing most cattle during the drought and receiving tons of rain this year...some places have not recovered. I have a degree in range ecology but anyone can learn to notice what overgrazing looks like if you learn a few plants. Maybe you guys have better ranchers in your neck of the woods...I hope so. Now the Gila County Cattle Growers are demanding to graze the Superstition Wilderness as well as permits where they do not hold the required base property. Hopefully, it will not be allowed but it seems like we are like India where the cow is sacred.

Hey Lark, Why dont you learn a little about what you are talking about..if you want to be like that.? Evryone has their feelings about grazing..but what is disturbing is that people do not want to look beyond their bias and learn what science can show you. Open your minds! There are 3 guys that patrol all of state land in AZ and the Forest's hands are so tied politically right now that they cant even monitor a pasture for an entire year even if the cows are beating the crap out of it. Actually in Globe, they dont even monitor..they are stuck in the office. This is thanks to the Gila County Cattle Growers who are currently appealing allotment plans that allow the permits 100-500 cows at a time. They want more and more. Its never enough. I have gone to the Forest many times about overgrazed areas and they tell me they cant do anything about it because the ranchers will call their Senators and the head of the Forest Service who lets them do just about anything they want. Its Multiple Use not Multiple Abuse and I agree with Bowsniper who says we should be worried about Habitat. The Forest doesnt even know where the cows are on their land let alone regulate it. I respect most forest service employees but their funding is continually being cut. Even if you look at straight $$$ without all the emotional arguments. It costs way more to administer grazing allotments than the return to the community. This isnt even including the cost to wildlife habitat and the money lost from sportsmen's dollars due to less deer. and whoever said deer browse and not graze.....thats not true. They need forbs and grass and certain critical times of the year. Cows browse as well esp during the winter. Too bad hunters dont care enough or want to learn enough to know what grazing does to wildlife habitat so they can influence their political leaders!!!!!

Shane, Cows eat grass....this grass carried fire. The depletion of grass ..along with fire suppression created the mesquites. Cattle had much more to do with the depletion of the riparian area than mesquites "sucking" all the water. Not to mention the city of Sierra Vista. Cows also create disturbance which facilitates the growth of noxious weeds such as Red Brome. Red Brome and Cheat Grass are the cause of damaging Sonoran Desert fires, which isnt adapted to fire. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I almost forgot....the Savory system is a good theory if you live in Africa where the land is adapted to short term stampeding by ungulates. Arizona is not. There are some benefits of hoof action on a short term grazing system but the ranchers around Gila County do not spend the time this management system requires for any success. They preach it because it gives them an escuse to pound out the soil with tons of cows but they dont follow all the practices or principals. This system requires moving cattle in short pastures very quickly and is very labor intensive. Were talking two week periods on average not each year or season like the Tonto.

Shane, Cows eat grass....this grass carried fire. The depletion of grass ..along with fire suppression created the mesquites. Cattle had much more to do with the depletion of the riparian area than mesquites "sucking" all the water. Not to mention the city of Sierra Vista. Cows also create disturbance which facilitates the growth of noxious weeds such as Red Brome. Red Brome and Cheat Grass are the cause of damaging Sonoran Desert fires, which isnt adapted to fire.

I liked your comments Scottyboy. I agree with you. I agree that there are good ones although I dont see any around the Tonto Natl Forest. I am really frustrated with the local ranger district who has told me that they cant monitor or make any changes to overgrazed areas because the ranchers are too political right now. Rangers act like its their right to use public land and that burns me. I am just trying to make people aware so someday the bad ranchers cant get their way by just picking up a phone and crying to their Congressman.

I agree that there are a few good ranchers and in some areas their water has helped wildlife. The thing is....there arent helping wildlife anymore. Waters are developed by game and fish and conservation groups and the land does not have to be grazed. That is also very rare that grass has choked an area....I wonder what kind of grass it is..? probably a non-native. Antelope need grass cover for fawn survival. This area evolved without livestock and the grass does just fine without cattle...and no..buffalo never grazed here either. Look at the next flat that is grazed and notice all the weeds that are growing in place of the natives that provided forage and cover. Most flats around Gila County are nothing but dirt and mustard grass. No wonder the Mearns are few and far between. I just find it hard to believe that diehard hunters refuse to consider the competition of livestock with wildlife. Its plain as day. The forest does not make them stay within standards. They dont monitor..I have asked them for data...and the ranchers are always fighting them politically. Predator control??? Science shows you cant control predators other than short term..lions and coyotes will always be here. They were here way before cows. Yes, they kill our beloved whitetail but they were doing it way before us. Did you know that when you put cattle on an area the predator population expands because of the increased prey base? So...cows also increase prey population. I guess their killing of them probably comes out even. Considering that they are impacting your public land for very little money..I think predators are a cost of doing business.

oh and...you say the big game would disappear if cattle were removed? the stewardship would disappear? What stewardship? What exactly would happen? The diversity and amount of forage would choke deer to death? The compacted soil would spring loose and poke elk's eyes out?

You guys have watched way too many cowboy movies. . First of all, I am hardly a tree hugger and I am very well read on range conservation and ecology issues. Second, your argument on unbridled development is unfounded. In Gila County, tell me where there are huge blocks of private land to turn into subdivisions. These are small private inholdings in the middle of forest land. If they were developed, then it would be the same...people living in a house or two ...but not grazing cattle. Also, conservation groups have been trying to buy base property so the range associated with it doesnt have to be grazed and forest service rules prohibit it. If these rules were changed...there could be improved wildlife habitat without the ranchers ruining the health of the land and receiving subsidies from your tax money. Thirdly, what range improvements are you talking about? The ranchers around here shut off all their water during the entire time their cattle were not in the pastures...despite the fact that they sucked the springs dry for their cattle and the water that would have been available for wildlife in a natural setting is now gone. Wells and other water catchments could and have been developed by others besides ranchers. How many improvements have you seen lately that have been maintained?? how many even work? how many tanks have water in them? How many fences do you want to climb over? You tell me to read???? Go out and look how livestock denude an area of native grasses and nutritous forbs. Seen Seven Mile valley lately? It was seeded for non-native lovegrass for cattle and now its the only thing growing....cows dont even eat it let alone deer. It looks atrocious even after the rainy winter. Hunters are way behind the times if they dont think grazing negatively effects wildlife. If you dont believe me...pick up a range ecology book, learn your plants, learn wildlife forage species, and have a look. and yes....most are rich or work a full time job...with very few exceptions.

I talked to the game warden yesterday about this. She said that you can drive off road to retrieve big game BUT this is limited. You cannot drive on closed roads if posted. Cross country driving is only allowed if "reasonable". It law is muddy and its the game warden's decision based on the damage to the vegetation and the tracks left behind. So basicly its common sense and she said she has cited people that have driven more than 200 yards over desert and/or grassland and won in court. She went on to say that the people she cited could have easily packed out the animal and were just being lazy ...and dont kill something in an area where you arent willing or able to pack it out. Her explanation sounded reasonable to me and she helped me pack out a deer a few years ago. FYI

I did a lot of research on this topic. For one, hunters's license fees are required by statute for the Game and Fish to spend on Game. Non-game dollars come totally from the funds from the lottery and matching federal funds. It bothers me when hunters bitch about spending on nongame. Habitat improved for non-game also benefits game and it makes hunters look like ignorant rednecks to think otherwise. Also, the license fees increase were already approved by the legisture and they are earmarked exclusively for raises to law enforcement, who currently make 28,000 a year. They cant hire any new ones. I think thats a good investment if you care about your wildlife. We still are the lowest resident fees in the country....and the numbers are only the highest that the Dept can raise them...not the amount that they will. They put them up high because they can only go to the legislature about every ten years with this. I answered these questions by calling them up and asking...which is what you can do to if something doesnt make sense.

Not to be rude but your friend got what he deserved...Two times that happened to me on my hunt this year Next time I'll probably have to give him a good old fashin country beatin <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I totally agree. What he did was stupid and hopefully he learned from it.

My friend was stupid enough to glass the game warden up in 24A thru his scope. He ended up in handcuffs and a $750 fine. Just a warning.

Get a copy of the hunt regulations and read them! and by the way the web site doesnt say that there are no lions in there. Buy a lion tag before you go but the chances of seeing a lion in there without well trained dogs are about the same as pulling a spaceship out of your ear.