2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

This topic has brought some interesting and emotional responses regarding the allowance of grazing on public lands but I feel that this discussion has strayed from foundation of it's original source.  It is not an argument advocating for vegetarianism or entertainment-only public land usage.  The issue here is the degradation of riparian areas and specifically it's effect on depreciating steelhead trout populations...yet this subject was not even discussed.  Is the steelhead fish population still decreasing in size without the presence of cattle?  Were cattle the direct cause of the harming these fish?

Concerning the two involved parties, the common element that they share is the love of the land and concern of it's well-being.  The Stout's reported that without the presence of cattle on the federal land, much of the riparian areas were extremely distressed.  As assessed throughout the entire discussion, the theme of "mismanagement" presents itself consistently and without pointing fingers to either party, it can be agreed that the land should be in better condition per government standards. 

Aspiring towards a resolution to this conflict, we must focus on the common interest of the land and put aside obvious differences in opinion.  Understand that the ranchers who utilize the public lands also do a lot of work in the maintenance and improvement of the terrain.  They fix worn fences and regularly manage the location of the cattle to help ensure that they are not demolishing riparian areas.  On the flip side, an abundance number of cattle have shown to have negative effects on the ecosystem of overused riparian areas. 

Realizing that these ranchers desperately need to utilize the public lands for grazing to support their production that the society and economy rely on, is there an agreement than can be reached?  Condensing the number of cattle that are allowed or staggering the years in which the public lands are able to be grazed could be an alternative conclusions.

People, please put your emotions and harsh comments aside and focus on a solution...not fueling the fire.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context