davebodner wrote:JPG, I think you're confusing two different issues. The government isn't controlling grazing on private lands. Yes, if the effluent from your cattle end up downstream in the next town's drinking water supply, the government can tell you to control your pollution. But it's up to you to decide how you comply with the pollution laws. You can sell your cattle, or you can plant more buffer trees. That's up to you.
You can characterize that as the government controlling your grazing rights, but that's a bit extreme. By that standard no one's ever had any rights. I don't think in human history has anyone ever had unlimited rights.
I included the private/public comment because of earlier posts having that confusion.
Yes the government 'can' tell one to 'control' anything that affects others(and most cases should when hazards are a factor) when 'authorized' by legislation.
Yes human history has had a time when unlimited rights were common. Back before governments were invented. However one had to be aware of the possibility of another's use of their unlimited rights and their perception of 'fair' and 'reasonable'.
It is perhaps 'extreme' to extrapolate environmental controls to grazing controls, but the effect remains.
Do realize that when one lives 'in paradise'(albeit a Democratic one) that some folks get frustrated by what to their perception is rampant, insolvent, interference with their ability to enjoy said paradise.
Don't they have Christmas on the big island 
