Replies

I believe that freedom entails responsibility. Land uses are assets. Destroy the use, and you've taken the asset. That means that someone who wants access to mine must either leave the property in a condition that remains useful or pay for the restoration or conversion to some other commensurately economic use. Of course, I'm no fan of public property in the first place, but if we are going to have collectivized land, do you as an "owner" really want public assets destroyed for private profit?

In this case, noxious weeds really can destroy the usefulness of the land for subsequent grazing, hunting, or other recreational or economic use. Why should the taxpayer pay to fix the weed problem these guys leave behind?

If you brought an equine to my land (which are notoriously poor at destroying seed as they chew), you'd have fed it purely native feed for weeks, AND cleaned its coat, or you could chase the seeds they drop for over twenty years. Even at that point, I'd still be taking chances that something got through. So, the operator has a choice: Pay a very expensive person to control the problem for decades or prevent the problem in the first place.

I deal with weeds, a lot: full time 5-7 months a year. On our land, I must distinguish 113 species of exotics from 244 species of natives. I must know them by their juvenile attributes, including grasses, which is cutting edge knowledge in management botany I promise you. Hence, weed control on our land requires the knowledge of a college graduate. On parts of my land, effective weed control requires a visit by a highly trained professional EVERY FOUR DAYS during the peak of the growing season. Not a few weeds have seed that can remain viable for decades.

The real technical question here is the requirement to use animals in the first place. Instead of mules one could bring in heavy equipment that the operator had pressure washed first and build a road. When they're done, retire the road you required to my satisfaction. On my land, it's that or no access to mine. Now, that means the mine is either worth the cost, or it's not. Don't go wrecking my place in perpetuity to chase a pittance. I expect a profit for granting access.

The one benefit of this (probably stupid) policy of requiring clean mules is that it makes the land of people who practice good stewardship in raising feed more valuable. It pays them for the extra work they do to control a problem that (in most cases) they had no role in causing. Around here, government is the primary culprit in the continued spread of noxious weeds.

Carrie, thanks for your very enlightening post. I was not aware of the intricacies of weed watching and their impact on all crops. Forgive a city boy his ignorance. I agree with conservation. Leave the land better than you found it, if you can. But, as you said, "Instead of mules one could bring in heavy equipment that the operator had pressure washed first and build a road." and

" The one benefit of this (probably stupid) policy of requiring clean mules is that it makes the land of people who practice good stewardship in raising feed more valuable. It pays them for the extra work they do to control a problem that (in most cases) they had no role in causing. Around here, government is the primary culprit in the continued spread of noxious weeds, I'm never for doing damage to the environment, but I thought what the hell...just another example of gov't getting in the way. One more thing, while I'm here. How did we ever survive the 1800's when there were no regulations to hinder us? I'm sure the fields somehow were able to survive the infestations. Appreciate your info...Merry Christmas to you and yours.