Housing developments threaten ranchlands

New study shows 24 million acres of ranchland to be lost by 2020 to housing developments.


Montana 5.1 million acres


Idaho 5 million acres


Colorado 4.8 million acres


Wyoming 2.6 million acres(much in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem)


Other states at risk, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona


STOP! I need open spaces!

But doesn't grazing sometimes destroy open space too? I know what you are saying, but the only way to ensure how property is used is to buy it, unless local governmnet takes your rights away by banning uses.

1) While it seems as if this is using up "open space" the continued urbanization (and suburbanization) of the United States has actually meant that over 95% of the U.S. is less densely populated now than 100 years ago and less area is being farmed. Wilderness area is increasing (as is forest cover). "Open space" is really a local issue that is dealt with differntly in different places. Here on the Colorado Front Range, there is more "open space" set aside for recreation now than ever.


2) in the interior west, converting land from ranching to surburban areas actually saves water! This was a surprising conclusion one of the guys in my Department (of Geography, University of Colorado) found in studying suburbanization in the West.


Regards,


Paul Talbot

A cool book on this sort of stuff (and a plug for people I know) is "Atlas of the New West."

I ordered the book along with Crossing the Next Meridian by Charles P. Wilkinson.


Any opinion regarding the coverage of Western land issues by High Country News publishied in Paonia, Co.?

Gallitan County,Mt. has a program that lets landowners sell property development rights to the county. The arrangement gives the landowner money to sustain an operation while allowing him to live on and work the land. I'm not sure what I think.


Nothing irks me more than to see streams and rivers drained to grow hay to feed cattle. I don't like development and I don't like cows and I don't like the government telling people what they can do,HELP.

I know a few people who have had Wilkinson on their MA or PhD committees and they all hold him in high regard.


I don't often enough read High Country News to comment on their coverage. Some people regard the paper as pure propaganda, others swear by it.


You may also be interested in looking at some of the stuff The Greater Yellowstone Coalition puts out.


Regards,


Paul Talbot

read about the study with too many rats in a cage

well ed, i recomend you stop reading studies and just get out there and enjoy what you can, while you can...for you are just as helpless to stop "progress" as our native americans were...best wishes and happy trails...

Don't know the guy, but had him for water law at C.U. I'm not ever going to be a water lawyer, but I liked the class. He was a professor who actually knew his subject and was interested in it and could teach it. An unusual enough commodity in law schools. Tell me how the books are, I might have to pick one up.

I just got home after a few hrs on the river. While I don't get to fish 100 plus anymore I do get out 30 or 40 times. I've fished Montana waters for over 20 yrs. Access is now more difficult.


No I don't feel helpless. There are organizations like the Nature Conservancy that buy land and keep it from being developed. Some landowners use conservation easements to keep the land from being subdivided. Yes I worry but I do have hope.


I raised my kids to love the outdoors, I hope that one day when they have their own they will do the same.

i'm glad you are not as jaded about the whole thing as i am. when i really think about how we as "civilized people" have become so removed from the earth, well it's just damn depressing to me...

How can a rational thinking person believe this kind of nonsense? No doubt you also adhere to the 'Rush Limbau' (sp?) notion that there are now more trees in the U.S. than in pre-settlement times. The meager lands set aside for recreation/wilderness were of course already vacant. They've just been 'reserved' for these uses - not cleared of houses.


I suppose when the U.S. population is 1 billion, we'll be in wilderness heaven with a nature reserve in everyone's neighborhood?

There are certainly less trees now than pre-European settlement. I did not say otherwise.


I said that there are more trees now than 100 years ago. This is fact.


The trend in every wealthy country is increasing forest cover.


No, trends don't last forever, but there is also no reason why the U.S. cannot have a population of 1 billion with more wilderness areas than today and more personal living space per person than today.


For the record I think Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. On matters of population and resources I generally follow the Julian Simon like minded economists.


Regards,


Paul Talbot

You want open space and lots of it? Then come to

super natural, beautiful British Columbia. There is only 4 million people on a land base of 350 million acres, of which 12 % has been set aside

as parks and special protectected areas. And bring

as many US$$$ as you can.