ATTENTION UNIT 23 LOVERS!

[Swivelhead]

6 minutes ago, AZDirtyTaco said:

It's always a bit surprising to see how much support the cattle ranchers get on this site. Based on what has been said in this thread, Bar X Ranch appears to be doing it the right way and I would love to see more ranches follow the same model. It's my experience that Bar X is more of the exception than the rule when it comes to the stewardship described, however. I am of the opinion that our public lands would be far better off without cattle on them, in the same way that they would be better without the donkeys and feral horses. The irony I have observed is that a lot of folks that support cattle on our lands have a polar opposite view on the donkeys and feral horses, though their impact on the land and the wildlife is identical. I've seen some of the most beautiful wilderness and backcountry I know around the state get turned into a near post-apocalyptical landscape as a result of irresponsible grazing and ranchers that reflect an attitude of entitlement instead. 

 

Feral asses & horses are not bound by grazing permits.  At this time no agency or politician will effectively deal the feral livestock issue as it seems to be political suicide.  BTW, back in the day when grazing permits were much more lienent we had a whole lot more deer and antelope (exception being elk).  Take a look at the permit numbers from the 70's & 80's vs. today.  We also did not have the catastrophic wildfires that seem the norm these days

[bojangles]

So, My BIL works for the USDA as a watershed manager in southern new mexico.  the feds keep a close eye on available water, and who gets what, and how much there is to go around, and so on and so forth.  

they wouldn't renew grazing permits, or issue them, if the water wasn't there to support them and wildlife.  

it's very scientific and mathematical.  

the sky is not falling, because there is cattle on public lands.

 

[Roosevelt Mark]

2 hours ago, Ringer said:

 How do you feel about a new program to allow the slaughter of wild horses and burros? That alone would improve the entire spectrum of wildlife here. They are invasive species and need to be culled for pet and human food.

These anti cattle people are all for saving the horses.

I say, grindem up and feed it to the inmates.

[Outdoor Writer]

2 hours ago, AZDirtyTaco said:

The irony I have observed is that a lot of folks that support cattle on our lands have a polar opposite view on the donkeys and feral horses, though their impact on the land and the wildlife is identical. I've seen some of the most beautiful wilderness and backcountry I know around the state get turned into a near post-apocalyptical landscape as a result of irresponsible grazing and ranchers that reflect an attitude of entitlement instead. 

 

Quite a bit of difference between cattle and feral critters. The latter are unregulated and serve no useful purpose, while regulated cattle produce beef for our steaks and support the people that own them.

[AZDirtyTaco]

14 minutes ago, Outdoor Writer said:

Quite a bit of difference between cattle and feral critters. The latter are unregulated and serve no useful purpose, while regulated cattle produce beef for our steaks and support the people that own them.

Respectfully, I don't believe that to be the case though. When I see the landscape underneath cattle and how devastated our very sensitive ecosystems become after falling victim...  I just can't see the difference. The majority of AZ, in my opinion, is just not well suited to support cattle on the scale required for ranchers to make a profit. I would have no problem eliminating beef from my diet if it meant our public lands would be rid of them. 

[Explorer]

2 hours ago, AZDirtyTaco said:

It's always a bit surprising to see how much support the cattle ranchers get on this site. Based on what has been said in this thread, Bar X Ranch appears to be doing it the right way and I would love to see more ranches follow the same model. It's my experience that Bar X is more of the exception than the rule when it comes to the stewardship described, however. I am of the opinion that our public lands would be far better off without cattle on them, in the same way that they would be better without the donkeys and feral horses. The irony I have observed is that a lot of folks that support cattle on our lands have a polar opposite view on the donkeys and feral horses, though their impact on the land and the wildlife is identical. I've seen some of the most beautiful wilderness and backcountry I know around the state get turned into a near post-apocalyptical landscape as a result of irresponsible grazing and ranchers that reflect an attitude of entitlement instead. 

 

Well put.  If people read the rules regarding grazing and what is the law /not the law. You will find ranchers break the rules. Our own state senator Steve Peirce posted state land as private property around his ranch and claims to be for hunters. Check out the state land in chino valley on 3 north and reed road and you will find 3 times the allotted horses permited on state land grazing state land. Horses are not livestock  per usda. Unfortunately the good old boy ranchers are way better then the yuppy let me build my house and complain about others crowd.

[Saguaro]

I know the feeling people have when you go outdoors and find that the cattle chewed the whole pasture down to the nub.  It bothers me too.  It sucks when the cattle are moved to the empty pasture you've been scouting for deer, elk or whatever and had lots of luck and now they're all gone, at least from the active pasture. There's also Gov assistance to farmers and ranchers that bother a lot of people.  They way I explain it away is that I enjoy cheap beef and access.  I've heard it from a ranchers mouth that if we were to stop all of the cattle ranching in the southwest, there wouldn't be anything felt in the meat industry of the U.S.  He seemed to know a lot about the meat market and carrying capacity and imports and things like that.  I'm not, nor will I ever campaign against ranchers.  I've had too many treat me well.  The problem here is we just don't have the water and grass that grows 3" a day like we do back east.  

The 70s and 80s we had a lot more rain than we do now.

Feral animals are the worst and I still can't believe we protect them, especially when science says they're bad.  It's real backwards thinking and humans should be embarrassed.

 

[Ringer]

I've eaten moose, elk, deer, rabbit, squirrel, mountain lion, bear, bison, sheep, javelina and a lot of other animals. Maybe open a season for horses and burros and try them out.

[trphyhntr]

On 7/28/2019 at 9:44 AM, Wagges said:

Putting 1000 pound animals in the desert and expecting the native animals to thrive is insane.

but they do thrive, all over the state. 

[trphyhntr]

3 hours ago, AZDirtyTaco said:

Respectfully, I don't believe that to be the case though. When I see the landscape underneath cattle and how devastated our very sensitive ecosystems become after falling victim...  I just can't see the difference. The majority of AZ, in my opinion, is just not well suited to support cattle on the scale required for ranchers to make a profit. I would have no problem eliminating beef from my diet if it meant our public lands would be rid of them. 

our game populations and all other local wildlife, especially in the desert would take a huge hit without cattle ranchers and the water they provide. 

[Big or Bust]

42 minutes ago, trphyhntr said:

our game populations and all other local wildlife, especially in the desert would take a huge hit without cattle ranchers and the water they provide. 

Fact, especially below IH 10. Coues populations would be decimated...

[Wagges]

My understanding is that most of the beef that comes from southwest and leased lands is sold over seas. I was told this by a rancher/cattle man. This is a term I use for a person solely makes his money from the sale of cattle. He told me the majority of our beef goes over seas, China. Don't quote me on the true amount as I admit I don't know the percentages. It's wrong to lose habitat and wildlife numbers to overseas interests. The cattle industries in the Midwest and East do it on private lands. This cattleman, told me that the average desert ranch with some property and the lease, is selling for 800,000.00 to a million, and you can't touch the ranches in the better elevations because of the price. So please don't ask me if I eat steak. For 30 years I have eaten ELK, Deer, Antelope and have not bought one package of hamburger. I DO BUY STEAKS AT COSTCO. All the ponds are all ready built, so what exactly do they do for wildlife besides drink them DRY

[CatfishKev]

Its already hard enough to id scat and animal tracks,  cattle just makes me confuseder. They need to die! 

[trphyhntr]

22 minutes ago, Wagges said:

 It's wrong to lose habitat and wildlife numbers to overseas interests

where is your evidence 

[AZDirtyTaco]

47 minutes ago, trphyhntr said:

our game populations and all other local wildlife, especially in the desert would take a huge hit without cattle ranchers and the water they provide. 

 

5 minutes ago, Big or Bust said:

Fact, especially below IH 10. Coues populations would be decimated...

Isn't this all a bit on the selfish side when we as hunters look at very real issues like this through such a narrow hunting lense? Wouldn't we be much better off and more closely aligned with the rest of the 'greenies', conservatives, etc. if we didn't just see public land in such a hunting centric way? If the land doesn't support more game as a result of us as humans managing it in as close to a natural state as possible given current understanding, technology, and what have you... than that's just the way it outta be in my opinion.  If the number of tags and hunter opportunity drops than so be it.  It would certainly be a bummer no doubt, but that won't stop me, my family and friends from adventuring into the backcountry and spending time where we always have and long before my hunting journey ever began.

I backpack a fair amount and many of my favorite natural riprarian areas that are sensitive to such large populations of cattle and non-native species are getting decimated. There are several wilderness areas I used to be able to take a nice soak and a drink right from the spring and now they are all too often infested with fecal matter and urine and barely filterable due to the cattle being moved in. Places many of you reading this don't see unless you're truly in the backcountry and miles away from your vehicles, ATV's and UTV's. I see it almost everywhere I go and that cattle are present. Some of those places will come back in time if given the chance and others, well... might not be so fortunate. I'm not an anti-cattle person though it may come across that way. I'm pro-wildlife and would love to see better utilization and management of public lands. There are plenty of other more suitable places in the country to raise cattle.