<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Hey there! Great to hear from a rancher on the cdt-l, and thanks for
the perspective. You'll have to forgive me if that particular post
seemed biased, as the posts by others that preceded surely were as
well. Of course bias is unavoidable, especially on an internet forum
where there's a tendency to overdramatize our positions, and so to
be misconstrued, even coming across as a caricature sometimes. I
apologize if that happened here. However, I genuinely believe there
is much common ground between camps. I spend a fair amount of time
hiking along the Divide and thereabouts in New Mexico and Arizona
and have met and spoken with a wide variety of folks who live and
work in the small towns along the way, as well as out on the range.
Invariably these encounters have been worthwhile and informative,
and the ranchers in particular have been helpful and courteous. In
turn, I have nothing but respect to offer, and I try to make sure
that this always comes across in person.<br>
<br>
We can agree to disagree about the impacts of cattle on the land. I
do tend to think reality on the ground is a complex situation,
highly variable from place to place, and so not ready made for
soundbites. It's great to know that there are ranchers who recognize
and treat the land as a renewable resource, who are thinking and
acting long-term, and who are seeing that it makes good business
sense to do so. I suppose as non-ranchers, those of us who traipse
through our public lands around the Divide suffer from an
unavoidable naivete, less aware of the good management practices
being implemented because they are simply more transparent than in
areas where we see negative impacts. I can certainly cite areas
where the latter is the case, and no amount of justifying the
situation will improve it. But I would like to gain a more balanced
perspective and to be able to cite more examples that would prove
old assumptions to be incorrect. You're finding me here, already
heading down this path, but still prone to cheap rhetoric of my own
from time to time. Just know that it doesn't come from a place of
animosity, but from a sense of connection with the land - granted a
different connection in some ways as my livelihood does not depend
upon it, but a connection all the same. I think this is probably the
touchstone that keeps relations between our two camps positive and
constructive when and where our paths cross out in the wilds.<br>
<br>
All best,<br>
<br>
Brett Tucker<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/29/2010 9:31 PM, Ed Kerr wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:BLU158-w40C7F5B1CD4BB103F2A2E5C7030@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<style><!--
..hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
Your comment about wild horses are better for the range than
cattle is not true. If wild horses are left unchecked, nature is
the cruelist manager of all, overpopulation results in herd
management by starvation or disease. You have a biased attitude
toward cattle and the industry, using the word "rancher" as some
would use the "n" word. I love the land, I enjoy ranching in the
desert southwest, and I think we as a nation should use our
resources, such as BLM range, to the best use which includes
sustainable ag. Some would have us lock up everything and not use
it. In that case, their would be no wildlife or wild horses in
the west due to lack of water resources, which have been provided
by cattle ranchers and maintained by those ranchers. The CDT
trail through Hidalgo County is over 75 miles with no water
sources, other than those provided by cattle water, which provides
this life giving liquid to deer, antelope, quail, javelina,
mountain lion, and much more...<br>
<br>
I would be glad to visit with you. I would love to show you our
part of the CDT trail through our cattle ranch. We maintain
cattle numbers to not use more than 50% of the forage and grasses
that grow each year from natural rainfall. The grass stays
healthy and the cattle do well, along with all the wildlife. We
rotate our cattle through different pastures throughout the year,
so that some pastures are rested 6 months or more each year. No
modern rancher would ever overgraze. In fact, it is impossible
to overgraze, cows die before they eat all the grass or destroy
it. In a drought, the feed value of the feed goes down and the
cattle lose condition, we always sell off our herd during dry
years. To do otherwise would be suicidal in a business sense.<br>
<br>
Have you been through the CDT?<br>
<br>
<strong><font color="#0c0c0c" face="Comic Sans MS">Ed "Bim" Kerr</font></strong><br>
<strong><font color="#0c0c0c" face="Comic Sans MS">Kerr Ranch
Tours</font></strong><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:edkerr52@hotmail.com">edkerr52@hotmail.com</a><br>
<strong>575.313.2606</strong><br>
<strong><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.kerrranchtours.com/" target="_blank">www.kerrranchtours.com</a></strong><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 23:52:57 -0500<br>
> From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:blisterfree@yahoo.com">blisterfree@yahoo.com</a><br>
> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cdt-l@backcountry.net">cdt-l@backcountry.net</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [Cdt-l] Fwd: : wild horse roundup<br>
> <br>
> When we cut through the rhetoric, we recognize that wild
horses, while <br>
> not indigenous to the West, are nonetheless ancestral to
western North <br>
> America, and that the land is far more suited to their style
of grazing <br>
> than that of today's beef cow. Of course the BLM's notion of
<br>
> "sustainable conditions" is largely an economic principle.
The grazing <br>
> allotment is for the benefit of the beef ranching industry,
and that <br>
> industry, subsidized by the BLM, gets to decide when and with
what they <br>
> share their range. From their point of view, overpopulation
is mostly a <br>
> synonym for economic threat. But of course from a biological
<br>
> perspective, overpopulation by cattle is simply the
devastating status <br>
> quo that is pushing the land to the brink, evolving it to
shape the <br>
> requirements of an industry at the expense of native
biodiversity. The <br>
> industry's defense remains that this status quo is necessary,
because <br>
> the only perceived alternative, however false, is for the
rancher to <br>
> abandon his relationship with the land, to give up ranching
altogether. <br>
> And this false binary logic maintains a culture of
permissiveness on the <br>
> part of BLM out of fear of damaging the relationship, of
losing what <br>
> little faith and cooperation the ranching industry continues
to uphold <br>
> with the government.<br>
> <br>
> Had the wild horses of North America survived the last ice
age, then <br>
> today we might be eating horse burgers and reading about how
the <br>
> natives, skilled equestrians, successfully drove off the
invading <br>
> Conquistadors and their cattle. Food for thought.<br>
> <br>
> - blisterfree<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Cdt-l mailing list<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Cdt-l@backcountry.net">Cdt-l@backcountry.net</a><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/cdt-l">http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/cdt-l</a><br>
<hr noshade="noshade" size="1">
<p class="avgcert" color="#000000" align="left">No virus found in
this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3346 - Release Date:
12/29/10</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>