HB187 and Cattlemens Assoc.

[grizzly]

Has anybody noticed that the Utah Cattlemens Association was a major proponant of HB187, which banned access to streams flowing through private property.

The hypocrisy of a group that demands access to public lands for their personal financial gain fighting to prohibit public non-financial enjoyment to public water is astounding.

I haven't heard their reason, but it is probably based on something like liability or public safety, both of which are perfect reasons to not have animals free on public lands and roads just waiting to cause massive damage to range land and injury or even death to a motorist.

After doing large amounts of research into current grazing regulations I have decided that the hunting and fishing communities seriously need to reconsider their relationship with the UCA.

What say you?

Grizzly

 

[huntindude]

If you'd ever run cattle on public land and put up with the screaming hippies everytime stock got near a creek you'd understand.

Cattle can damage riparian areas it can't be denied, but run properly the impact is minimal, but in the wrong places even minimal is unacceptable. this is why I gave up my allotment, I had more trouble with granolas the last 5 years than my family had for the previous 50. times have changed, people have changed, ag has to change because you're outnumbered and you'll damn sure be out spent if you go to battle.

 

[grizzly]

I would like to see the grazing rules change with the times. New science has found proper grazing can improve habitat for game animals, but the Cattlemens Association has largely been uncooperative to any new suggestions.

I think Sportsmen assume that Cattlemen are an ally, when on many issues I don't think they are.

Grizzly

 

[piper]

I have listened to cattlemen say Elk should not be allowed to live on public land because all the forage that grows there belongs to those that hold grazing permits, most people don't know the half of it, I haven't heard anything about the Utah water issue for a while, whats going on?

 

[grizzly]

UCA and SFW's bid to privatize water again was shot down in the Legislature. They'll try again next year.

Grizzly

 

[huntindude]

As someone who's a member of the Cattlemans Assc. and the RMEF how do I put this, most but not all cattlemen aren't interested in what's best for hunters. the wolf is the best case of common ground I can think of, and landowner tags are a great peace offering. this is why I say those who fight landowners making money off their tags are cutting the hunters throat, if the landowner-cattlemen want to since they own so much wintering ground they could make a lot of herds pretty much go away.

Be careful how much you want to push, it's a fine line .

 

[D13er]

Cattlemen and sportsmen can disagree and hate each other all they want....what they can't afford to do is split a coalition that has a little clout against a common enemy....split into 2 groups they will have no voice at all...


great post/pic, thanks for sharing

JB

 

[piper]

just who the common enemy? animal rights activists don't really worry me any more than property rights activists

 

[proutdoors]

>just who the common enemy? animal
>rights activists don't really worry
>me any more than property
>rights activists

Spoken like a true socialist! Private property rights are essential to being a free people. The fact you don't get that speaks volumes!

PRO

www.oddiction.com

 

[piper]

Animals rights,property rights, when you take these things to their extreme limits, thats when problems arise, you do understand that don't you, do you believe we have the right to do anything with animals? or do you believe we can do nothing? do you believe no one should own the earth? or do you believe it all should be owned privately? do we have a right to water? do animals have a right to forage? all fanatics scare me. you speak like a true fundamentalist.

 

[D13er]

>Animals rights,property rights, when you
>take these things to their
>extreme limits, thats when problems
>arise, you do understand that
>don't you, do you believe
>we have the right to
>do anything with animals? or
>do you believe we can
>do nothing? do you believe
>no one should own the
>earth? or do you believe
>it all should be owned
>privately? do we have a
>right to water? do animals
>have a right to forage?
> all fanatics scare me.
>you speak like a true
>fundamentalist.

WOW....



great post/pic, thanks for sharing

JB

 

[proutdoors]

Animals do NOT have rights! People do, and we should treat animals decent, but NOT because they have rights. Property rights are essential to being free, the more freedom people have to acquire/retain property the more free the people are. WTF does bunnyfluffers crying about 'animal rights' have tod o with property rights?

PRO

www.oddiction.com

 

[piper]

sorry if that offended you but there are a lot of simpletons on here and you have to write kind of slow, and make it easy to understand, or they just start using labels and calling names.

 

[proutdoors]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-22-09 AT 07:54PM (MST)[p]And you of course are immune to such actions, right?! Is "simpleton" a name/label? Just wondering.

PRO

www.oddiction.com

 

[piper]

the property rights fanatics that scream about Elk eating grass on public lands, when a rancher sues the government saying elk drank water out of the streams that he had the adjudicated water rights to, when a rancher builds a fence and blocks an antelope migration path that has been used for thousands of years, as a hunter those things bother me, does that make me a commie? those things aren't common but they have and do happen.

 

[RELH]

Watch it Piper, you are going to tick off Dude and he is going to stick that bottle of Crown Royal up your gazoo for sounding like the tree hugger wacko that you are coming off as.

RELH

 

[piper]

maybe, but I think he knows there are fanatics on all sides of everything.

 

[huntindude]

Animals do have rights, maybe not constitution rights but we have laws in place that protect them to a degree, as it should be.

Livestock doesn't have the right to graze public land , but the allotment owner does have the right to graze them just like a water right. I expect these grazing rights to be taken in many cases, or life for the holder will be made so tough he'll want to give it up, like in most stories there are two sides to this. those few ranchers who have a good allotment have a huge advantage over those who don't, as a whole the cattle industry would be better off if allotments were revoked because it might make a more level playing field for the rest, don't think all cattlemen are united in defense of public allotments. this is going to be a hot topic for some time.

 

[proutdoors]

Animals do NOT have rights! Just as trees do NOT have rights. Only humans have rights. We have a duty to take care of animals, but how can a cow have any rights? How does it know of it's rights? What are a cows rights? Are they ensured 3 meals a day, a warm place to sleep, does the Second Amendment apply to them as well? It is inane to assert animals have rights.

Sadly, grazing on public land is likely going to go the way of the dino, but NOT because of animal 'rights', but because of domestic terrorists AKA environmentalists.

PRO

www.oddiction.com

 

[huntindude]

It depends on what you define as a right, amimals have rights in respect to our laws. you're argument is ignorant, we all have rights that aren't in the bill of rights. a woman has the right to walk down the street without being raped, but it's not in the bill of rights if you want to get technical.

Our laws imply rights, just as they do for animals. what is your reason for making a big deal out of this? are you one of those idiots who thinks if setting a dog on fire is good fun we should do it because animals are just here for our use and entertainment? I'm a hunter and a cattleman so I recognize animals have a place in the food chain but they do feel pain and fear and our laws give them some rights in a manor of speaking . only an idiot would suggest otherwise or see the need to argue they have no rights, the kind of person with no compassion who gives hunters and cattlemen a bad name.

I've been teased many times for treating my dogs and horses like people, and I waste a lot of money to see my cattle endure the least amount of suffering I can manage. anyone who has a problem with that knows I'll tell them to go to hell, I make no appologies to anyone for treating animals with respect. what's your problem with that? if abuse to a wild animal doesn't constitute a property crime but is illegal what else would you call it? does it matter? do you feel so superior to an animal that saying they have a right not to be abused threatens you in some way? this doesn't go back to a stupid " soul " issue or something does it? that would be pathetic.

 

[piper]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-23-09 AT 12:06PM (MST)[p]humans don't even have the right to three meals a day or a warm bed, in a lot of places you cannot even drill a well on your own property to get a drink of water, someone else has the "rights". I don't think Grazing on public land is going away, I think it is slowly coming under tighter controls, but where its compatable with other things, most people will say, why not? and the fees might someday come to be more in line with private grazing fees. I also think the endangered species act gives animals and other things "rights"

 

[wetmule]

"other things rights" What does that mean?

Does the ESA now give your Birkenstocks rights?, how bout your Crocs?

 

[NeMont]

Can any of you explain what is meant by animals having rights?

HD- Do you own the animals you take care of? If so then the animals "right" to free choice is gone, after that all that remains is for you to protect the value of your asset. That is far different then saying animals have rights. You are attempting to maxmize your gain in your assets and you have a "belief" that they should be taken care of even better then other people. That still doesn't rise to the level of a right. If you truly believe that animals have these rights please name one and explain where in nature or law they arise from.

Feeding and caring for them is one thing, animal cruelty laws are designed to protect animals who do not have any rights but rather are at the mercy of humans. Domesticated animals have their environment, schedule and overall well being controlled by humans therefore animal cruelty laws are made to control human behavior not animals behavior.

You can shoot a beef cow and won't be brought up on murder charges, you can saddle a horse and "force" him to carry a burden. To say animals have rights in the same sense that humans have rights is actually a very dangerous arguement to make if you truly enjoy hunting. If you want to see how the idea of animals having rights and hunting are not compatible just look at the British experience.

By establishing rights for animals it leads to banning them in medical experiments, raising them for fur, and loss of hunting.

there is a difference between a right and treating animals humanely.

Nemont

 

[piper]

wetmule, other species of life besides animals. Nemont- the endangered species act gives native plant and animal species the right to live, it goes into more detail but thats the essence of it, of course species is different than individuals.

 

[NeMont]

Piper,

Are you being serious that you think the endangered species act gives plants and animals the right to live? Can you find that in any part of the law or of the thousand of ESA cases that have been fought out in court?


While the "taking" part states what constitutes a taking the only goal of the ESA is recovery of a species. If a right was granted to an animal through the ESA it would always be illegal to kill that species of animal regardless of how many of them there were.


Recovery
The law?s ultimate goal is to ?recover?
species so they no longer need protection
under the ESA. Recovery plans describe
the steps needed to restore a species
to ecological health. FWS biologists
write and implement these plans with
the assistance of species experts; other
Federal, State, and local agencies;
Tribes; nongovernmental organizations;
academia; and other stakeholders.

That is far different then a right, rights are thought of as being inalienable or permanent and in need of protecting. We don't protect endanger species in order to give them the "right" to live. We protect so that if possible the endangered species can recover. We don't extend "rights" to them.



.

 

[D13er]

jeez Nemont, you are one patient son of a gun.....it would be easier to explain the concept of "rights" to your dog...




great post/pic, thanks for sharing

JB

 

[piper]

come on its pretty stupid to argue about this, they have a right to recover and live as a species, whatever, the truth is the founders weren't gods, for one thing they believed in the right to own other human beings, while they did create a government that has been a model for many others, its falling apart so I guess its not perfect, and I really don't care about this parsing of words, we got gun rights, water rights, grazing rights, mineral rights,property rights, the right to a lawyer, the right to be happy, the right to liberty, and some other rights, and sometimes I think George Carlin had it right when he talked about rights.

 

[huntindude]

Ok we're getting technical here and it serves no purpose.

When I say rights I'm refering to the fact the law says you can't do that or you must do this ect ect. technically if it's illegal to set a dog on fire then you could say you don't have the right to do that and the dog has the right to not be set on fire. you could argue that doesn't constitute a right in the form that the bill of rights states and you'd be correct but who gives a damn. if an animal is protected from an illegal act as far as I'm conceerned it has a right to that laws protection.

I like to argue as much as the next guy but give me a break.

 

[proutdoors]

Giving animals 'rights' puts them as equal to humans, and that is a terrible idea. Nobody has suggested setting a dog on fire should be allowed, that is beyond absurd. Anyone who can't see the difference between no abusing animals and animal rights is a confused individual. Nemont explained it more than well enough that even a third grader should be able to grasp it. Animals have NO rights, but they are protected in civilized societies. But, that is because of human decency not animal rights. You brand cattle, do you think if they had rights they would tolerate such actions? An animal or plant does not of the ability to reason and make choices based on logic, therefore they have no rights. Wait a minute, that may apply to a few liberals on here, so what to do.

The ESA does NOT give a plant rights, the fact someone posted that on a public forum is inane. Where is the Constitution/Bill of Rights is the provisions giving animals/plants specified rights? Talk about nonsensical thought!

PRO

www.oddiction.com

 

[huntindude]

OK if I was good at drawing pictures maybe I could get this through to you but I'm not.

As far as I'm concerned an animal has the right to be treated humane, that doesn't mean the right to vote it means basic respect for another living creature. if that's asking too much then so be it I don't really care if that makes you feel less superior in natures plan.

I dislike the branding , always have but it's not easy to get around. I also get a sick feeling in my gut when a load heads for the feedlot, but that's part of the process of life. I don't run the numbers like I used to and this is part of why, but I also know I treat my animals as well or better than any stockman I know and if I didn't raise them someone else would anyway. anyone who doesn't feel sympathy for animals and have a feeling they have a RIGHT to as humane of treatment as possible within the bounds of their place in the food chain is not much of a person in my opinion. I wouldn't trust a person like that.

 

[REDDOG]

I do care for animals, and it sickens me to see them misstreated, but to say they have rights is playing into the hand of HSUS and other groups. i know its just words, but its thier words.

dude, sounds like you should get out of the bizz? i mean if it bothers you to brand, well that not good in your line of work. have you ever tried freeze branding?

 

[huntindude]

It doesn't bother me that much, but I'm aware of it and we do the best we can. for the last 10 years or so we work all the animals through equiupment and don't do the big branding social anymore. it's much more efficient and easier on the animals, they're in and they're out and it's over and it's not that bad.

Don't get me wrong cattle are dumb, but no animal should be mistreated. again to say rights is just word play, unless you have a specific list of legal rights it doesn't mean anything more than a reasonable obligation. I'm not a hypocrite I eat meat and I'm aware of the where it comes from, I'm also aware there are some ways of doing things that are more humane than others where you still get a good steak.

I'll never back off advocating for reasonable humane treatment of any animal because of fear it could be used against me by a special interest group or anyone else. we all have our core principles and and that one is not negotiable for me.

 

[grizzly]

I was getting bored with this until somebody mentioned setting a dog on fire. Of course that should be outlawed, but can we make it okay for cats. Please.