Notthat I have anything against tree huggers, but they do have a tendency to testranchers' patience. There have been frivolous lawsuits brought against ranchersby environmentalist groups to keep cattle off land. They have accused cattle ofdestroying food for the lesser long-nosed bat without even having proof that thebats reside on the grazing land. They always want our cattle out of the way, andcomplain about how cows destroy this plant or that.

They need to startthinking about how life would be without cattle. Not only is the meat eaten andthe hide tanned for leather goods, but nearly every part of a cow is used. Thehooves and bones are used for dog toys. Your car's antifreeze contains glycerolderived from fat, and many other products contain some substance from cattle.

How about wildfires? Everyone is always complaining about them. Ifranchers were allowed to graze in certain places or given a bit longer leases,fewer fires would occur since most of the fuel would be eaten. But, since"nature is not to be disturbed," in some places the leaves shed overthe years accumulate to over 10 feet. There were two huge fires and many smallerones just in Arizona this year.

Environmentalists worry about the effectsof overgrazing on plant life, but on my ranch, the forest still caught fire; justabout all the plant life is gone, but with all the rain the grass comes back evenmore plentifully. And environmentalists are still worrying about overgrazing, asif we ranchers don't. Most of us are careful because if our ranches areovergrazed, we will run out of feed for the next year and would have to feed thecattle hay, adding more work to what we already have.

My point is thatenvironmentalists need to start looking at the bright side, and appreciate allthe benefits they get from our ranching. They need to think twice beforecomplaining about cattle and realize that we do care about our land.