Wildlife vs. Welfare Ranchers

[greg54]

You're welcome Curmudgeon, I enjoy pointing out their ignorance

Liberals consider the display of the Confederate flag as racist.

[DirtTime]

Hey now, I said nothing about the constitution! Read what I said again! 

[mike rossi]

Curm,

 

Is the Bundy clan actually a traditional ranch family first of all? I know that is what we read in the media and I believe what they say, but is it verified? He  certainly looks like a big burly cowboy, but is he just a rich slicker who bought some land and got into the cattle business? How many upstaters think they can buy a dump on 10 acres on a county road, then a pick up truck and burn pallets in their back yards think they are rural folk since they moved out of the (sh)itty 20 years ago? 

 

Fact is, the majority of ranchers and other agricultural producers are very environmentally conscious and on very friendly terms with natural resource agencies, very often partnering with them, sometimes with financial incentives to do so, other times with no financial compensation at all. . Since most land is in private ownership, that is a good thing. Despite most land in private ownership; in the west, many federal public acres are prime grazing land, and the owners (the federal government) allow ranchers to increase their income by increasing their herd size or the health (size/.meat yield) of their herd by leasing them land at well below market value. Yes, back in the wild west, cattlemen would let their stock roam the prairies and then shoot it out with other cattlemen or anyone who pissed them off. Really Mr. Bundy, is that what you stand for? 

 

Curm, your post here gives urban/suburban easterners a platform to rock the right wing narrative without any idea of what they are talking about or without any back ground with livestock, western culture, rural sociology, or the relationship between landowners and private lands biologists working for the federal gov, state gov, or NGOs. Why add to the confusion? You are punching right wingers, which is no better when they punch hippies. If you are so inclined, I got plenty of work to keep you busy and it is work that will actually make a difference.... 

Edited January 10, 2016 by mike rossi

[Curmudgeon]

Mike -

 

Of course this is more complicated. Of course there are ranchers doing the right thing. It is like hunters. Some are very good at pursuing their goals while completely ignorant what is going on around them. Others model themselves after Aldo L. Some are slobs.

 

The far-right narrative here on this issue has been "Why Are Leftists So Gung-Ho About Shooting Americans For Disobeying Government?" and "federal overreach". The complexity of federal land use  - whether we are talking minerals/fossil fuels extraction, logging, grazing, off-road vehicles, etc. - and the impacts of those activities on wildlife, vegetation and hydrology are important to hunters and others who care about wildlife and habitat. You will not find these concerns addressed by the far-right, at least not here in the political forum. While I may enjoy poking the wingnuts, it is necessary to point out - for this issue and others - concerns and motivations that other readers here may be unaware of.

 

I see this as no different than the coyote discussions. The black/white dialog obscures the reality. The discussions here tend to be emotional reactions not intelligent conversations. I learned long ago, if an issue is leaning hard one way, the best way to bring it to the middle is not to position yourself in the middle of the road. I rarely - almost never - advocate a rigid position here. My hope is to raise questions. This angers a couple of the regulars but it provides an opportunity for those seeing a constant stream of cut and paste propaganda to question, and hopefully research and learn.

 

On the first confrontation - over Cliven Bundy's unpaid grazing fees - I do believe that the feds backing down has emboldened these people. Talk about slippery slopes. Will this be the new normal: every angry white guy with a gun who objects to federal land policy will call out the so-called "militias"? This certainly does not help facilitate an intelligent discussion.

 

You are entirely too reasonable. To paraphrase Mrs. C. "Mike Rossi, STOP MAKING SENSE!"

 

[wildcat junkie]

Well, according to the narrowest  interpretation (read conservative) the federal government has at least the same "property rights of ownership" as a citizen. That would entitle the government to protection of those property rights by rule of law.

 

^^^Crickets^^^

 

 

I wonder how hunters, outfitters & guides in western states that depend on access to BLM land view this land grab attempt by local ranchers?

 

 

^^^More crickets^^^

[wildcat junkie]

If not for tyrannical executive orders we wouldn't have this problem in the 1st place.

 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to provide for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic livestock on public rangelands, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. Determination of Fees. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are directed to exercise their authority, to the extent permitted by law under the various statutes they administer, to establish fees for domestic livestock grazing on the public rangelands which annually equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the Statistical Reporting Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100; provided, that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year's fee, and provided further, that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this Order, the term:

(a) "Public rangelands" has the same meaning as in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 95514);

( "Forage Value Index" means the weighted average estimate of the annual rental charge per head per month for pasturing cattle on private rangelands in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service from the June Enumerative Survey) divided by $3.65 and multiplied by 100;

© "Beef Cattle Price Index" means the weighted average annual selling price for beef cattle (excluding calves) in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) for November through October (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service) divided by $22.04 per hundred weight and multiplied by 100; and

(d) "Prices Paid Index" means the following selected components from the Statistical Reporting Service's Annual National Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Goods and Services adjusted by the weights indicated in parentheses to reflect livestock production costs in the Western States: 1. Fuels and Energy (14.5); 2. Farm and Motor Supplies (12.0); 3. Autos and Trucks (4.5); 4. Tractors and Self-Propelled Machinery (4.5); 5. Other Machinery (12.0); 6. Building and Fencing Materials (14.5); 7. Interest (6.0); 8. Farm Wage Rates (14.0); 9. Farm Services (18.0).

Sec. 3. Any and all existing rules, practices, policies, and regulations relating to the administration of the formula for grazing fees in section 6(a) of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 shall continue in full force and effect.

Sec. 4. This Order shall be effective immediately.

RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
February 14, 1986.

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 10:32 a.m., February 18, 1986]

 

Edited January 11, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[wildcat junkie]

[wildcat junkie]

[Mr VJP]

This is basically the heart of the matter as far as the Constitution is concerned:

 

It defines the "Property Clause" regarding federal land ownership.  It's a long and convoluted history, that is the reason today's controversy exits.

 

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause

 

What's your question Junkie?

 

I already posted the above stating my view on the issue.  Did you not read the link?

[wildcat junkie]

What's your question Junkie?

 

I already posted the above stating my view on the issue.  Did you not read the link?

As a matter of fact I did & I responded as below.

 

Well, according to the narrowest  interpretation (read conservative) the federal government has at least the same "property rights of ownership" as a citizen. That would entitle the government to protection of those property rights by rule of law.

Here is the language in question. Cut & pasted from that link.

 

"The narrowest conception, which can be called the proprietary theory, maintains that the Property Clause simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land. It can set policy regarding whether such lands will be sold or retained and, if they are retained, who may enter these lands and for what purposes."

[ants]

 

Yes….Im here

[Mr VJP]

As a matter of fact I did & I responded as below.

 

Here is the language in question. Cut & pasted from that link.

 

"The narrowest conception, which can be called the proprietary theory, maintains that the Property Clause simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land. It can set policy regarding whether such lands will be sold or retained and, if they are retained, who may enter these lands and for what purposes."

 

That's correct.  That's why I posted it.

[diplomat019]

hypothetical question:

 

what happens if the land that they now have "occupied" and want to give back to the people is in fact done so.  and then if those private individuals say "nobody is allowed to hunt/fish/hike/camp/etc on my land"?  Or they decide to sell the land to some company who decides to put up whatever they please.  Those are legit questions.  Its a double edge sword, that could swing against the interests of sportsmen.  yes or no?

 

 

[Curmudgeon]

hypothetical question:

 

what happens if the land that they now have "occupied" and want to give back to the people is in fact done so.  and then if those private individuals say "nobody is allowed to hunt/fish/hike/camp/etc on my land"?  Or they decide to sell the land to some company who decides to put up whatever they please.  Those are legit questions.  Its a double edge sword, that could swing against the interests of sportsmen.  yes or no?

 

Yes, the interests of sportsmen, the interests of wildlife, are not served by the so-called "miliitias".

 

[wildcat junkie]

hypothetical question:

 

what happens if the land that they now have "occupied" and want to give back to the people is in fact done so.  and then if those private individuals say "nobody is allowed to hunt/fish/hike/camp/etc on my land"?  Or they decide to sell the land to some company who decides to put up whatever they please.  Those are legit questions.  Its a double edge sword, that could swing against the interests of sportsmen.  yes or no?

 

 

Yes, the interests of sportsmen, the interests of wildlife, are not served by the so-called "miliitias".

 

It's all coming back to the "rights" (greed) of the REICH.

 

They're only interested in their own "freedoms", to hell with everyone else.

 

They want to take the land from the people of the United States (government) and divvy it up among themselves & whomever THEY deem worthy.

 

It's a land grab effort pure & simple.

 

ANYONE that depends on "public" land for hunting should be watching this debacle with concern for their rights to public access.

Edited January 12, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[mike rossi]

Like I said, I lived out there about a third of my life, everybody is happy except for a few. If you ask his neighbors, who are about 5 miles a apart or go into town and talk, people will tell you he is a nut....

 

 

A bunch of eastern "city dudes" online characterizing this as if it is some sort of widely accepted attitude among rural folk or ranchers or farmers is all bunk. Go out there and talk to 20 people, see if anyone tells you he is not a nut job....

 

And correct, on federal land, you hunt, right among the cattle and sheep owned by private producers. Nobody is irate about it. The Indian reservations model their system the same way, a lot of whites running their cattle and sheep on rez lands too. 

 

Then, on private land, many, many, landowners are very cooperative with conservation programs on their land, sometimes they are paid, other times they are not.

 

This eastern myth the ranchers and farmers hate black people, coyotes, and dont want to protect the environment is absurd. It even transgresses into NY when some of you go and offer to help with the coyote problem and 9 times out of 10 they laugh at you.... 

 

I am done here, this is absurd.... 

[wildcat junkie]

Like I said, I lived out there about a third of my life, everybody is happy except for a few. If you ask his neighbors, who are about 5 miles a apart or go into town and talk, people will tell you he is a nut....

 

 

A bunch of eastern "city dudes" online characterizing this as if it is some sort of widely accepted attitude among rural folk or ranchers or farmers is all bunk. Go out there and talk to 20 people, see if anyone tells you he is not a nut job....

 

And correct, on federal land, you hunt, right among the cattle and sheep owned by private producers. Nobody is irate about it. The Indian reservations model their system the same way, a lot of whites running their cattle and sheep on rez lands too. 

 

Then, on private land, many, many, landowners are very cooperative with conservation programs on their land, sometimes they are paid, other times they are not.

 

This eastern myth the ranchers and farmers hate black people, coyotes, and dont want to protect the environment is absurd. It even transgresses into NY when some of you go and offer to help with the coyote problem and 9 times out of 10 they laugh at you.... 

 

I am done here, this is absurd.... 

Did I miss something? I didn't see anyone but you frying to lump every rancher in with these lunatics.

Edited January 12, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[diplomat019]

I dont think mike was alluding to that. I kinda think he was saying that the ranchers out there aren't supportive of this movement. Maybe a handful but the majority arent on board with this and dont feel this way. They are in the opposite side of bundy. Thats what i took from his comment unless im wrong.

[Curmudgeon]

 

A bunch of eastern "city dudes" online characterizing this as if it is some sort of widely accepted attitude among rural folk or ranchers or farmers is all bunk. Go out there and talk to 20 people, see if anyone tells you he is not a nut job....

 

 

I've never lived out there. I hope you are right. I certainly consider him a "nut job".

[wildcat junkie]

I dont think mike was alluding to that. I kinda think he was saying that the ranchers out there aren't supportive of this movement. Maybe a handful but the majority arent on board with this and dont feel this way. They are in the opposite side of bundy. Thats what i took from his comment unless im wrong.

 

Well, if the ranchers don't' support them, the Piutes sure as hell don't support them, the locals don't support them, the county is running up a bill for all of the expenses, (which given Bundy's dead beat heritage will never be paid) what sort of delusional thought process gave them such a Messiah complex?

 

Brings to mine the expression;  "He's a legend in his own mind"!

Edited January 12, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Well, if the ranchers don't' support them, the Piutes sure as hell don't support them, the locals don't support them, the county is running up a bill for all of the expenses, (which given Bundy's dead beat heritage will never be paid) what sort of delusional thought process gave them such a Messiah complex?

 

Brings to mine the expression;  "He's a legend in his own mind"!

We'll probably get the same return that the Fed's got in Ferguson. 

[wildcat junkie]

We'll probably get the same return that the Fed's got in Ferguson. 

 

I guess the next time the cops shoot an unarmed black man, the local black community should heavily arm themselves & "peacefully" take over a city park.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I guess the next time the cops shoot an unarmed black man, the local black community should heavily arm themselves & "peacefully" take over a city park.

I am sure the shop owners would have preferred that. 

[Curmudgeon]

I guess the next time the cops shoot an unarmed black man, the local black community should heavily arm themselves & "peacefully" take over a city park.

 

Literally, laughing out loud. Can you imagine?

 

[wildcat junkie]

I am sure the shop owners would have preferred that. 

 

 

Literally, laughing out loud. Can you imagine?

 

Open carry, 2nd amendment, Murica & all that $HIT!