Steaks are quite tasty! ??

You are a very misinformed individual. Almost all of the land except the low bottoms was originally grassland except that which should never have been broke out and has been returned to grass because it was unsuitable for farming. People like you who think you know it all are a threat to my livihood and to the country as well. Before we had cattle we had 66 million buffalo. Now we have some 90 plus million cattle. There are a lot of greater threats to the environment than cattle.

@Trajan61 Im not the misinformed. Just because you want to be so doesn't make ot so. On e again, anecdote by denial over fact.

Buffalo moved and migrated continually giving their rangeland time to recover. We know this to be a fact. The migration routes of historic buffalo herds had a migration cycle following the seasons over hundreds of miles, not acres.

Cattle are usually retained on a limited range eating it over and over, not allowing it to recover. Some intelligent ranchers are now understanding about rotation. It has returned to grass, but not the indigenous varieties of grass that belong there. The grasslands of today are a scant representative of what the original prairie was originally. The modern habitat is much less diverse and healthy as the original tall grass prairie prior to cattle ranching.

@t1nick your points are true, but nite, they are falling on deaf ears of individuals who don't really give a damn about the future or about the truth. Their argument on already grass lands is BS for much of the planet as humans started agriculture. Just imagine the Americas pre Europeans, much less pre, now, indigenous people.

@t1nick My pastures are not overgrazed and are covered with lush mostly native and improved grass’s so what are you talking about? Farming on the highly erodible land is what causes the most erosion, not cattle ranching.

@DarrelScott I agree.

@DarrelScott. Your comment doesnt make sense. Carbon dioxide is a molecule, not a plant. It is a byproduxt of a chemical reaction. Cattle are not a necessary part of any ecosystem. They are a humanly domesticated animal from a previously indigenous form. The planet would not suffer in their absence.

Yes carbon dioxide levels fluctuate, but evidence abounds that human use of fossil fuels and other activities like cattle ranching have elevated the levels much more quickly and to higher levels than is safe for the planets well being.

The push back about climate change, including cattle ranching has nothing to do with wanting to control of the masses. Its more about making sure that their is a healthy planet for your grandchildren and their grandchildren.

@DarrelScott, @Trajan61. im hlad you do not overgraze. But its not true of all ranching. Better now than in the historical past. Yes agriculture has done its share of destroying the environment.

@DarrelScott I teach high school biology, college geology and college chemistry. I have observed the data firsthand. I have worked fot NASA measuring greenhouse gasses. I worked with the Univrr3sity of Arizona reconstructing paleoclimates from obtainable data.

Your observations are held by a very small contingency of scientists, less than 10%, most of which are employed by the fossil fuel industry. The raw data is overwhelming in favor of the scientists backing climate change.

It has nothing to do with mass population control. That just paranoid rationalization.

@t1nick Since your so apposed to the cows how do purpose we use all these highly erodible grassland that are unsuitable for farming?

@TheAstroChuck Trajan and I are on opposite sides of the argument. I'm not sure how you are conflating the two of us together?

@TheAstroChuck Fringe science

@t1nick sometimes it prefills two names when you hit reply. I have to manually delete the extra name. Im guessing that is what happened here

@Lucy_Fehr ok. Thanks

@TheAstroChuck understand. Thanks. Trajan and Darrell have similar stances.