Nevada BLM actions background

Pages

682 posts / 0 new
Last post
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Longshot Said:

gst Said:
No where have I inferred you were "for" this sale of lands far below their value, only that you are so biased against one rancher you would chose to over look this "theft" of many millions from "the people".

That observation  is no BS.

Wow you even contradict yourself in a single post.  You're getting good at that.  Claim to not infer that I was for the land sale yet infer that I would overlook it (approve of it being the meaning of this) because of your perceived bias against "one rancher". 

Really this is the best you got???

So saying someone is wiling to over looking something now equates to claiming that person approves of it now?

That remedial English class is starting to fill up boys.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:

one simple question.

That's the biggest lie I have seen on fishingbuddy.  One question, sure and pigs fly.

gst Said

one simple question. Is NO grazing the right amount on lands in Nevada?

bruce it is pretty simple and it is only one.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said

You claimed there should be NO grazing on these lands

I said if it takes 320 acres to feed one cow there should be no grazing.  I can't imagine anyone grazing land with that little grass.  From a energy budget standpoint I don't see where a cow can balance energy output with energy gained.  I kind of wonder if old Bundy was telling the truth about that too. 

Ah you must be the guest speaker at rons "Ranching 101" class eh bruce?

How many millions of cattle do you think have been raised on these lands over the years bruce?

I am starting to get confused here bruce are you for grazing these lands or against it?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said: 

How about the land in Wyoming that you seemed to be an expert on bruce. you seem to want to sneak way from that conversation.
 

I see you can't count either.  I seen public land in Wyoming that was lightly grazed, some heavily grazed, and some moderate.  I looked at the prescribed grazing rate and some of those guys were putting in more cattle than they paid for.  I needed to look at heavily grazed, moderately grazed, and lightly grazed so it worked out well.  It was hard to find lightly grazed.  Unfortunately heavily grazed was the easiest to find.  The lightly grazed that I looked at would have supported a cow calf on 15 acres.  The heavily grazed would have required 80 acres and needed a year of recovery.  Any more grazing and there would have been tooth marks on the rocks. 320 acres per AUM if not all trees, sage, or cactus must look like a lunar scape. 

gst how much per acre would you rent land from a neighbor for grazing 320 AUM land.  Maybe you could answer that question for me.  I doubt you will answer, but I want others to think about that.  What does this land look like, and why would you want your cow on it? 

Nice story plainsman, but you still have not addressed the fact I shared with you that the range land around Worland Wy. that the BLM manages has a much lower grazing requirement (60.-70 acres) and yet you still claimed there should be no grazing there didn;t you?

Oh and please excuse me if I do not place much stock in your grazing analysis, you hardly seem to be a ranglenad specialist.

As to what I would pay, it would depend what other lands were avaliable now wouldn't it. It would depend on what profit I would like to make and what my other expenses would be as well right?
 
If all the other lands around it were the same and I had enough to run enough cows to make a living why wouldn;t I want cattle on it bruce??

But you see that is the kicker bruce, your friends in the NWF have it figured out.

Let me share once again their plan and ideals are.

"What everyone likes is the Big Victory. You load them cattle trucks for the last time and they go driving off into the sunset and they never come back."

"But you can win a lot more victories than that ultimate one, you can win a lot more victories by making him (the rancher) pay for what he does out there and by making it so expensive in his operation and making so many changes for him to continue to run his cattle on the public lands that he goes broke, he can't do it, he has to come up with other ways to be a rancher."

"When you get right down to it, the boots and the hat, boy for them guys, it’s a way of life."

"The ultimate picture is, of course, the last cattle truck driving off into the sunset, but that's not how you win."

"How you win is one at a time, one at a time, he goes out of business, he dies, you wait him out, but you win."

There you go bruce, these are the kind of people YOU are defending and welcoming into our state to change our constitution aren;t you?

Please defend why you want people like this coming into our state to have access to billions of dollars plainsman.

You support people like this coming into our state and yet you expect people to believe your bullshit about supporting grazing????

How stupid do you think people are bruce?

Have you ever heard the statement  "actions speak louder than words" bruce?

Credibility.

Oh, bruce, what does a piece of land look like when Allen Savory is done grazing on it?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

plasinamn you seem to be emboldened now that longshot and west have shown up.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

21 pages and it can be summed up just as I said in my very first post!!

Bundy wrong!!

BLM wrong!!

Reid wrong!!

None of those wrongs excuse or give any of the above the right to act and be wrong!!

Yet gst and others support Bundy acting wrong and use BLM being wrong as justification.

If you want to use that logic then BLM is right because of the wrong Bundy committed and Reid is right because both Bundy and the BLM where wrong!!!

Good god, give it a rest! Public support for Bundy is nill!!! Public support to slow down and stop the BLM is rising!!

People like gst and bundy supporters are hurting the efforts to stop and slow the BLM!!!!

You can twist, spin and piss and moan all you want gst but you are hurting more than helping!!! The very few uneducated on this issue is so small that your time would be better spent fixing fence!!!

Your back to back to back etc... posting confirm you are a dumbass!!!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Plainsman Said:

Bundy never signed the lease back in 1993 either. Now go fish. You tell us why?

I think that's why the BLM called it trespassing.   I don't think he had grazing rights when he put his cattle out this spring.  Maybe that's why they decided to do something this time of year.  It's when he put his cows on the land.

A typical Plainsman response. I don't care to hear more of your opinions. Do some research and tell me why Bundy refused to sign the BLM's lease agreement in 1993.

I'm waiting.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:
21 pages and it can be summed up just as I said in my very first post!!

Bundy wrong!!

BLM wrong!!

Reid wrong!!

None of those wrongs excuse or give any of the above the right to act and be wrong!!

Yet gst and others support Bundy acting wrong and use BLM being wrong as justification.

If you want to use that logic then BLM is right because of the wrong Bundy committed and Reid is right because both Bundy and the BLM where wrong!!!

Good god, give it a rest! Public support for Bundy is nill!!! Public support to slow down and stop the BLM is rising!!

People like gst and bundy supporters are hurting the efforts to stop and slow the BLM!!!!

You can twist, spin and piss and moan all you want gst but you are hurting more than helping!!! The very few uneducated on this issue is so small that your time would be better spent fixing fence!!!

Your back to back to back etc... posting confirm you are a dumbass!!!

got a link to back that up?

Ron did you happen to catch Megan and Dana ?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:
The very few uneducated on this issue is so small that your time would be better spent fixing fence!!!

Your back to back to back etc... posting confirm you are a dumbass!!!

It seems they are all on FBO!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:
 The very few uneducated on this issue is so small that your time would be better spent fixing fence!!!

Your back to back to back etc... posting confirm you are a dumbass!!!

This coming from the "Ranching 101" professor that schooled everyone on ranching in SD after the Atlas blizzard.

Hell even bobkat thought you were a dumb ass in that one ron.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
Do some research and tell me why Bundy refused to sign the BLM's lease agreement in 1993.

There is no excuse for it other than in Bundy's mind and I guess yours too. 

As to what I would pay, it would depend what other lands were avaliable now wouldn't it. It would depend on what profit I would like to make and what my other expenses would be as well right?

gst I was more specific than you want to answer.  Lets assume there is no other land available.  Now, how much would you pay per acre for land that takes 320 acres to feed a cow?  Perhaps I should ask if you would rent it under any circumstances. 

Ripnem's picture
Ripnem
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/17/06

 Didn't 52 Ranches shut down their business, that neighbored the Bundys?

Why in the sam scratch would he follow down the same path? 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

feather_duster's picture
feather_duster
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 9/10/06

 Adrian Peterson is now a Seahawk!!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:

Do some research and tell me why Bundy refused to sign the BLM's lease agreement in 1993.

There is no excuse for it other than in Bundy's mind and I guess yours too. 

As to what I would pay, it would depend what other lands were avaliable now wouldn't it. It would depend on what profit I would like to make and what my other expenses would be as well right?

gst I was more specific than you want to answer.  Lets assume there is no other land available.  Now, how much would you pay per acre for land that takes 320 acres to feed a cow?  Perhaps I should ask if you would rent it under any circumstances. 

plainsman why not answer fritz;s question?

To answer yours, if I can rent the land at a rate that allows me to be profitable why wouldn;t I rent it?

You want a black and white answer. In expecting one all it does is show your lack of understanding and knowledge of ranching. There are simply too many variables to be able to give you the black and white answer you seek.

The fact you do not understand this speaks loudly to how little you really know about ranching.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

btr, so it appears you are amused by someone that is as poorly informed as some on here?

I mean he is a comedian, sometimes funny, (he even had a few humorous moments here, but he seems fixated that Mr Bundy broke the law as are a small group on here?

Myself and others have acknowledged he did in fact not abide by the regulations set forth by the BLM.

Okay? Even though ron disingenuously insists I don;t understand that, it is clear, and it has been admitted.

But given Mr. Stewarts apparent insistance the "law" be followed, please explain how the BLM gets a pass for breaking regulations themselves?

You see back in the 90's the BLM as a result of lawsuits by radical enviromental groups "broke" the regulations that governed the multiple use contracts Mr Bundys family had been grazing cattle under for generations.

The BLM continued to break these multiple use regulations (ladd , a lawyer, referenced them early on in this discussion) and Mr Bundy watched as it forced 52 other ranchers off these BLM lands they were making a living grazing cattle on.

So stay with me here, cause I think Mr Stewert seemed to completely ignore this part like some on here are.

If the government begins to break the laws that are in place to regulate an action, is the person under those regulations compelled to follow the act which is the breaking of the regulations by the govt?

Make no doubt about it, the Federal govt alpahbet agencies are breaking these multiple use regulations all over. They are doing so because groups like the NWF are suing them if they do not.

Remember those documents form the BLM site that spelled out this removal of cattle from these multiple use lands which mysteriously disappeared after this all started but were retreived from another sites cache? (I wonder if Mr. Stewart had read those? )

So when the govt itself engages in unjust actions, are the actions taken in response unlawful?

I mean a judge being smoozed by Harry Reid for a seat on the SCOTUS thinks so............................ but who knows where this will ultimately end up.

There are court cases pending all over the west over this very thing. And despite rons legal crystal ball, the Wayne Hage case set a precedence never before set that may open some peoples eyes a bit. (at least those that want tobe opened)

I mean how many times has ron and plaisnamn agreed in this thread that Wayne Hage was right and yet they seem to disregard Mr. Hage a lawyer himself that successfully argued his case in court was there supporting the Bundys

Now I know ron and logshot and a few others have a high opinion of their own legal expertise, but when a actual lawyer such as Hage that was successful in overturning the BLM himself joins the fray, forgive me, but I place a little more weight on his understanding of the situation than rons or bruces or longshots.

but hey, continue to get your information on things such as the incremental overtaking of individual freedoms by the Federal govt from comedy shows..................what could possibly go wrong with this nation as a result.

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08

This is probably the BEST explanation I have heard about this whole situation starting at 1:00:

www.velocityradio.fm/keystone-pipeline-roni-bell-sylvester-on-bundy-fallacies/

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

btr, I'll see your Jon Stewart and raise you a Colonel Allen West.

But I'm sure ron thinks he is a "dumb ass" as well.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

pber Said:
This is probably the BEST explanation I have heard about this whole situation starting at 1:00:

www.velocityradio.fm/keystone-pipeline-roni-bell-sylvester-on-bundy-fallacies/

This is a very definative accurate explanation for those that actually want to learn a little bit about this situation that is happening not only at the Bundy ranch, but all across the nation.

thanks for sharing that.

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

pber,

I have asked Plainsman to share something other then his usaul useless information. If you can find this so can he.

That was an easy listen. Early on in this thread I mentioned split title. The fed/gov owns the naked land, the ranchers own the forage and have rights in the water. I also mentioned that a cow is a walking mini factory. Cattle have rights to water and forage.  Roni Bell Sylvester mentioned that cow has an easement of right of way to use the trails. 

Roni Bell Sylvester mentioned something that some of us have been thinking. The States want the fed/gov to give up control of these lands. Escalantie National Park in Utah was turned into a monument by Clinton. It is loaded with coal natural gas etc. Much of those lands are. The Chinese own a great share of our national debt. What has our fed/gov been putting up for collateral?

A split title on land would complicate things.  

pber Said:
This is probably the BEST explanation I have heard about this whole situation starting at 1:00:

www.velocityradio.fm/keystone-pipeline-roni-bell-sylvester-on-bundy-fallacies/
 

Thanks for the link. Roni Bell Sylvester just made too much sense.

I asked Plainsman to tell me why Bundy refused to sign the BLM lease back in 1993. I knew I wouldn't get a link like you just provided. Instead more of his flatulence.  For the life of me I cannot understand why the North Dakota Wildlife Federation or the Wildlife Society have not put a muzzle on him.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:
btr, so it appears you are amused by someone that is as poorly informed as some on here?

I mean he is a comedian, sometimes funny, (he even had a few humorous moments here, but he seems fixated that Mr Bundy broke the law as are a small group on here?

Myself and others have acknowledged he did in fact not abide by the regulations set forth by the BLM.

Okay? Even though ron disingenuously insists I don;t understand that, it is clear, and it has been admitted.

But given Mr. Stewarts apparent insistance the "law" be followed, please explain how the BLM gets a pass for breaking regulations themselves?

You see back in the 90's the BLM as a result of lawsuits by radical enviromental groups "broke" the regulations that governed the multiple use contracts Mr Bundys family had been grazing cattle under for generations.

The BLM continued to break these multiple use regulations (ladd , a lawyer, referenced them early on in this discussion) and Mr Bundy watched as it forced 52 other ranchers off these BLM lands they were making a living grazing cattle on.

So stay with me here, cause I think Mr Stewert seemed to completely ignore this part like some on here are.

If the government begins to break the laws that are in place to regulate an action, is the person under those regulations compelled to follow the act which is the breaking of the regulations by the govt?

Make no doubt about it, the Federal govt alpahbet agencies are breaking these multiple use regulations all over. They are doing so because groups like the NWF are suing them if they do not.

Remember those documents form the BLM site that spelled out this removal of cattle from these multiple use lands which mysteriously disappeared after this all started but were retreived from another sites cache? (I wonder if Mr. Stewart had read those? )

So when the govt itself engages in unjust actions, are the actions taken in response unlawful?

I mean a judge being smoozed by Harry Reid for a seat on the SCOTUS thinks so............................ but who knows where this will ultimately end up.

There are court cases pending all over the west over this very thing. And despite rons legal crystal ball, the Wayne Hage case set a precedence never before set that may open some peoples eyes a bit. (at least those that want tobe opened)

I mean how many times has ron and plaisnamn agreed in this thread that Wayne Hage was right and yet they seem to disregard Mr. Hage a lawyer himself that successfully argued his case in court was there supporting the Bundys

Now I know ron and logshot and a few others have a high opinion of their own legal expertise, but when a actual lawyer such as Hage that was successful in overturning the BLM himself joins the fray, forgive me, but I place a little more weight on his understanding of the situation than rons or bruces or longshots.

but hey, continue to get your information on things such as the incremental overtaking of individual freedoms by the Federal govt from comedy shows..................what could possibly go wrong with this nation as a result.

This whole huge write up and all I did was post a video clip that pertains to the situation. Just so you know, I didn't even bother reading past the 2nd paragraph because I wasn't making a statement.

Rowdie's picture
Rowdie
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/14/02

I thought I was funny how in one sentence he says he does not recognize the Federal Gov't, but then carries an American Flag.  

"Once you've wrestled, everything else in life is easy.".     Dan Gabel

feather_duster's picture
feather_duster
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 9/10/06

 Bowmans locked up..

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Rowdie Said:
I thought I was funny how in one sentence he says he does not recognize the Federal Gov't, but then carries an American Flag.  

You have to have an IQ of about 30 to do that. 

For the life of me I cannot understand why the North Dakota Wildlife Federation or the Wildlife Society have not put a muzzle on him.

Why have they not put a muzzle on you Fritz?

gst I can see you will not give an answer to what you would pay per acre for land that would take 320 acres to feed a cow.  What's pasture land rent for in North Dakota?  I have not asked in a while, but lets keep it real low and say $20 acre where the AUM is seven acres per cow calf.  So that's a grazing investment of $2.85 and acre.  If you paid $1 an acre for Bundy's grazing rights you would pay $320 to feed one cow.  I just wanted you to acknowledge how poor this land is.  I wanted everyone to ask themselves if land is this poor should it be grazed, or is Bundy lying again?  

I get why you would not want all land grazed no matter how poor gst.  Not grazing extremely poor land would be conservation.  We know just the word conservation makes you pucker.   

cynical's picture
cynical
Offline
Joined: 10/27/04

Rowdie Said:
I thought I was funny how in one sentence he says he does not recognize the Federal Gov't, but then carries an American Flag.  

I find it disturbing how many people see this as you do.  The Fed Govt is out of control and is nothing like what the founders intended. 

"The only enemy of guns is rust and politicians."

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."

William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Unarmed helplessness is for sheep and the French."  Ted Nugent

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
 -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

Longshot's picture
Longshot
Offline
Joined: 12/1/03

gst Said:
So saying someone is wiling to over looking something now equates to claiming that person approves of it now?

That remedial English class is starting to fill up boys.

So you mean overlook as in you wanting to overlook any wrong doing by Bundy right?  gst don't you get tired of having the liberal victim mentality.  The typical liberal who cannot claim any resposibility and can only blaim everyone esle. 

There are court cases pending all over the west over this very thing. And despite rons legal crystal ball, the Wayne Hage case set a precedence never before set that may open some peoples eyes a bit. (at least those that want tobe opened)

 

That may be gst, but obviously the judge in Bundy's case didn't believe it applied.  You keep asking what people know about water rights.  Let me tell you that no matter what you may think or what your opinions are the final say are the courts.  The judge makes the decision on what case law applies and if you don't like the judgment you have the right to appeal.  Bundy hasn't appealed and instead decides since he doesn't like the decision he will ignore it.  Regardless of anyone else's wrong doing he broke the law by ignoring the courts.

Longshot's picture
Longshot
Offline
Joined: 12/1/03

Fritz the Cat Said:
A split title on land would complicate things.  

Fritz, could you explain this split title?   I have seen leins, intrests, and morgage holders of title, but never a split title. 

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Longshot,

You missed one. If you sign a perpetual easement with the fed/gov they will ceratinly go to the register of deeds office and record it.

Split title.

You may own the naked ground (possession) but somebody else owns the "use". 

Now apply it in reverse and take a look see at what those ranchers own. 

Plainsman Dick Monson Ron Gilmore have been arguing for years that a willing seller should be able to sell a perpetual easement to the fed/gov if they want to.  

The fed/gov entered into a contract with these ranchers years ago. Now they want to reneg.

Isn't it funny how things come full circle.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Fritz the Cat Said:
Longshot,

You missed one. If you sign a perpetual easement with the fed/gov they will ceratinly go to the register of deeds office and record it.

Split title.

You may own the naked ground (possession) but somebody else owns the "use". 

Now apply it in reverse and take a look see at what those ranchers own.  

No Fritz, on a wetland easement you still have use of the land also.  You just can't burn, fill etc.  Go look north of Devils Lake at all the posted signs.  If the U S Fish and Wildlife had use of it the farmers could not post.

I watched that Jimmy Sengen or whatever clip.  The lady that was on was from a ranching background so she isn't any more of a answer to end all questions than you or gst.
If what she was saying was correct then the billions of dollars the taxpayers spent on water development was for ranchers and the cities have no water rights.  Power is in the voter and if that's true it will end.  Also she says the ranchers own the grass.  I don't believe there is a split title.  I would like to see both titles to a single piece of land.  Then she went on to say that all grazing fees are to be used for improvements on the land.  I think the fees should be high enough to pay for the government administration of those lands.  They only pay about half now, but if she is right it should pay none.  In other words you think the rancher has the right to make slaves of the American taxpayer.  We pay you get.  Ya, I see that attitude coming from you and gst. 

I hope the average person doesn't buy into this crap.  If they do they are giving away part of their paycheck to people who have not earned it.   If this was all true then ranchers with grazing rights have purchased rights to perpetual  welfare. Please understand this would be my opinion if Fritz was right.  I believe however that they have grazing rights, but not ownership.  Grazing fees should at least pay for the administration of those lands so should be raised. 

The reality though is your bringing up every other subject you can in the hopes of gaining sympathy for the criminal Bundy.  The bottom line remains Bundy.  Everything else brought up by Fritz and gst simply complicates a simple answer.  Bundy is wrong. Making it more I think is an attempt at a land grab by ranchers.  That would be devastating for outdoor recreation.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Fritz the Cat Said:
Longshot,

You missed one. If you sign a perpetual easement with the fed/gov they will ceratinly go to the register of deeds office and record it.

Split title.

You may own the naked ground (possession) but somebody else owns the "use". 

Now apply it in reverse and take a look see at what those ranchers own. 

Plainsman Dick Monson Ron Gilmore have been arguing for years that a willing seller should be able to sell a perpetual easement to the fed/gov if they want to.  

The fed/gov entered into a contract with these ranchers years ago. Now they want to reneg.

Isn't it funny how things come full circle.

No, Fritz I believe the Feds need to honor the contracts a written, never have said otherwise. What I have repeated over and over is one wrong or two or more does not justify a wrong by the other party!!!

You and gst an other Bundy supporters are advocating that and this is what the public are not buying. Think the poll was in the Denver paper this past week that reflects that. So continue to parade Bundy as the poster boy and you and others like you are going to face a public that sees you all as lawless and greedy.

So my view has not changed!! Nor is it in any conflict with the Bundy situation! He screwed himself

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Rowdie's picture
Rowdie
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/14/02

cynical Said:

Rowdie Said:
I thought I was funny how in one sentence he says he does not recognize the Federal Gov't, but then carries an American Flag.  

I find it disturbing how many people see this as you do.  The Fed Govt is out of control and is nothing like what the founders intended. 

How do I see it??

I'm actually rooting for Bundy.  (although he acts like a NUT)  I said way early in this thread that I think he should have battled as Hage did. 

Still find it funny how he can NOT RECOGNIZE THE US GOV'T.  LOL  and then ride around on his horse flying the US FLAG.  

You gotta admit......That is some funny shiii   crap.

"Once you've wrestled, everything else in life is easy.".     Dan Gabel

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

His cowboy with the American flag PR bit is backfiring with many people.  Everyone I talk to has simply written him off as another Gordon Kahl.   The pony and flag routine they planned to impress everyone with backfired.  So gst what flag are you going to carry on your pony for the 4th of July parade? Do you recognize the United States and it's constitution?  I think that's a fair answer to anyone who supports Bundy since he doesn't recognize the United States yet ranchers support him.   

Longshot's picture
Longshot
Offline
Joined: 12/1/03

Fritz the Cat Said:
Longshot,

You missed one. If you sign a perpetual easement with the fed/gov they will ceratinly go to the register of deeds office and record it.

Split title.

You may own the naked ground (possession) but somebody else owns the "use". 

Now apply it in reverse and take a look see at what those ranchers own. 

Plainsman Dick Monson Ron Gilmore have been arguing for years that a willing seller should be able to sell a perpetual easement to the fed/gov if they want to.  

The fed/gov entered into a contract with these ranchers years ago. Now they want to reneg.

Isn't it funny how things come full circle.

An easement being either permanent, temporary, or designated time frame in only an interest in real property.  I didn't miss anything.  You can subdivide real property, but you cannot spit title.  If someone owns the use of the property it's an easement.  That person's name is not on the title nor can it be split.  You either own it or you don't and an easement to someone or group is not ownership.  Now I know you and gst don't believe in perpetual easements to be sold to a government entity (the public).  Are you also against a rancher having a perpetual easement (grazing rights) to public owned land?

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

There are so many band wagon jumpers now. Hage did it right... Really!!!

Everybody likes to be on the winning team. Back in the 90's Hage didn't have a fan club, supporters, donors or helpers. His was a lonely vigil.
 
I was a supporter of Hage long before being a supporter of Hage was cool.

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Longshot,

I didn't miss anything.  You can subdivide real property, but you cannot spit title.

Definition of split:  to divide or separate.

Now I know you and gst don't believe in perpetual easements to be sold to a government entity (the public).  Are you also against a rancher having a perpetual easement (grazing rights) to public owned land?

 

The fed/gov is now reneging on the contract with the ranchers. Isn't it funny how we have come full circle.

Longshot's picture
Longshot
Offline
Joined: 12/1/03

Fritz the Cat Said:
Longshot,

I didn't miss anything.  You can subdivide real property, but you cannot spit title.

Definition of split:  to divide or separate.

Now I know you and gst don't believe in perpetual easements to be sold to a government entity (the public).  Are you also against a rancher having a perpetual easement (grazing rights) to public owned land?

 

The fed/gov is now reneging on the contract with the ranchers. Isn't it funny how we have come full circle.

You're missing the point Fritz, you can split land but you cannot split a title to land.  By law they are to different things by definition.  Also you really didn't answer the question about perpetual easement, just skirted around the question.  How about you gst, care to comment?

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

 Now I know you and gst don't believe in perpetual easements to be sold to a government entity (the public).  Are you also against a rancher having a perpetual easement (grazing rights) to public owned land?

Oooh my gosh, I need an icon for hysterical laughter. 

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Fritz, I was un aware of the Hage Family plight until the early part of 2001. Had not heard anything about it, but did find out from my rancher friend in Newcastle WY. From that time I have been well aware of it.

I have also been aware of the Bundy issue for the same reason and the same person. The point of the matter does not change, one rancher chose the proper route to prove his claims. The other chose poorly and screwed himself in his choice of actions.

Like it or not, the realtiy is just as I have stated, the public does not see wrong acts being justified because of another wrong act.

But back to Hage Family. It is as I stated to cynical and you before, the positive and right face to push to maintain and build support for Congressional action to stop the BLM and EPA!!!!

Without that, it will rely on the courts and that takes a great deal to long and damage to many has already occurred that is hard to undo.

I watched the hearings  on the BLM, and many of the ranchers who spoke did so very well, explaining the actions and retribution that they have dealt with for speaking out or challenging them in areas where they where wrong. Others though where much like gst and cynical who where so clueless to the reaction of those listening that they undid what the others had accomplished.

Keep harping that Bundy is some kind of hero or that his behavior and choices where proper. Go ahead, but do not be upset with the backlash and lack of support that it is going to garner!!

Like I said I think it was the Denver paper that did the poll, heard about it on the radio and most responders to the poll felt that while Bundy may have been wronged he is not entitled to any compensation or sympathy because of his own actions.

In other words they view him as an equal part of the problem not a victim!!

No amount of posting will change that fact, especially since the reporter said support for him dropped dramatically once the facts surrounding it came to light!!!

Something you and gst and cynical have tried to ignore but the public has not!!

Now what next? More BS cut and paste that ignores his actions or tries to justify his illegal acts as being OK !

The BLM as I said before is wrong, so is Bundy and so was Reid. None of them being wrong makes it OK for others to act wrongly themselves. THAT IS THE HARD TRUTH OF THE ENTIRE MATTER!

I said before that the BLM and EPA have increasingly over reached. Congress is the only place that this can be fixed and it is going to take public outcry to get them under control. We in the mid west and rural areas of the nation are of lower population and representation. We need support from urban areas to affect any change. Bundy as the front man is not the rally point.

In fact he is as much of a poison as PETA or the HSUS is to people here in ND when they get involved!

Think about that! Bundy equals PETA and HSUS in gathering support!!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Rowdie Said:
I thought I was funny how in one sentence he says he does not recognize the Federal Gov't, but then carries an American Flag.  

You might want to hear Mr. Bundys comments in their entire context rather than jut a 5 second blurp.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Longshot Said:

gst Said:
So saying someone is wiling to over looking something now equates to claiming that person approves of it now?

That remedial English class is starting to fill up boys.

So you mean overlook as in you wanting to overlook any wrong doing by Bundy right?  gst don't you get tired of having the liberal victim mentality.  The typical liberal who cannot claim any resposibility and can only blaim everyone esle. 

So then if you wish to "claim responsibility of wrong doing lnogshot, does that same responsibility apply to the Federal govt or not?
You and a few others seem to wish to completely ignore the Federal govts "wrong doing" when they moved to end the multiple use agreements these alnds were held under because of lawsuits form the "sportsmen/enviromental"  groups you support.


So longshot should the Federal govt accept responsibility for the wrong doing in removing these ranchers from these lands in violation of the multiple use agreeements these lands were held under for generations??

There are court cases pending all over the west over this very thing. And despite rons legal crystal ball, the Wayne Hage case set a precedence never before set that may open some peoples eyes a bit. (at least those that want tobe opened)

 

That may be gst, but obviously the judge in Bundy's case didn't believe it applied.  You keep asking what people know about water rights.  Let me tell you that no matter what you may think or what your opinions are the final say are the courts.  The judge makes the decision on what case law applies Perhaos he made the ruling inbetween vists with Sen Reid in DC.  and if you don't like the judgment you have the right to appeal.  Bundy hasn't appealed and instead decides since he doesn't like the decision he will ignore it.  Regardless of anyone else's wrong doing he broke the law by ignoring the courts.
 Exactly what was the case the judge ruled against Bundy for longshot?

Boy go to a meeting for a couple hours and things get interesting!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:

Fritz the Cat Said:
Longshot,

You missed one. If you sign a perpetual easement with the fed/gov they will ceratinly go to the register of deeds office and record it.

Split title.

You may own the naked ground (possession) but somebody else owns the "use". 

Now apply it in reverse and take a look see at what those ranchers own.  

No Fritz, on a wetland easement you still have use of the land also.  You just can't burn, fill etc.  Go look north of Devils Lake at all the posted signs.  If the U S Fish and Wildlife had use of it the farmers could not post.

I watched that Jimmy Sengen or whatever clip.  The lady that was on was from a ranching background so she isn't any more of a answer to end all questions than you or gst. Bruce can you prove what she says wrong????
If what she was saying was correct then the billions of dollars the taxpayers spent on water development was for ranchers and the cities have no water rights.  Power is in the voter and if that's true it will end.  Also she says the ranchers own the grass.  I don't believe there is a split title.  I would like to see both titles to a single piece of land.  Then she went on to say that all grazing fees are to be used for improvements on the land.  I think the fees should be high enough to pay for the government administration of those lands.  They only pay about half now, but if she is right it should pay none.  In other words you think the rancher has the right to make slaves of the American taxpayer.  We pay you get.  Ya, I see that attitude coming from you and gst. 

try dropping the liberal class warfare and actually present some facts here Bruce. Why do you think I was asking what people know about water rights in these wetern lands Bruce?

I hope the average person doesn't buy into this crap.  If they do they are giving away part of their paycheck to people who have not earned it. Bruce waht about the portion of their pay check they are ivin to these enviromental groups that sue over everything such as the NWF and the CfBD that then have tehir lawsuits paid for by the taxpayer? Why don;t you ever hold these people accountable as you like ot do the agriculturalist?   If this was all true then ranchers with grazing rights have purchased rights to perpetual  welfare. Please understand this would be my opinion if Fritz was right.  I believe however that they have grazing rights, but not ownership.  Grazing fees should at least pay for the administration of those lands so should be raised. 

The reality though is your bringing up every other subject you can in the hopes of gaining sympathy for the criminal Bundy.  The bottom line remains Bundy.  Everything else brought up by Fritz and gst simply complicates a simple answer. Indeed bruce do not let simple facts get in your way of your "simple answer". Life is so much easier when the govt provides you that "simple answer isn;t it bruce, you spent a life time in govt getting a check for just that.  Bundy is wrong. Making it more I think is an attempt at a land grab by ranchers.  That would be devastating for outdoor recreation.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:

Fritz the Cat Said:
Longshot,

You missed one. If you sign a perpetual easement with the fed/gov they will ceratinly go to the register of deeds office and record it.

Split title.

You may own the naked ground (possession) but somebody else owns the "use". 

Now apply it in reverse and take a look see at what those ranchers own. 

Plainsman Dick Monson Ron Gilmore have been arguing for years that a willing seller should be able to sell a perpetual easement to the fed/gov if they want to.  

The fed/gov entered into a contract with these ranchers years ago. Now they want to reneg.

Isn't it funny how things come full circle.

No, Fritz I believe the Feds need to honor the contracts a written, never have said otherwise. What I have repeated over and over is one wrong or two or more does not justify a wrong by the other party!!!

So ron, when the Federal govt breaks an agreement and the Federal courts will not uphold their responsibility to honor that agreement, and your Federal representative happens to be the one behind the govt breaking their agreement, what redress do you have left???

Please explain this for us.

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Longshot Said:

 Now I know you and gst don't believe in perpetual easements to be sold to a government entity (the public).  Are you also against a rancher having a perpetual easement (grazing rights) to public owned land?

You guys want perpetual easements really bad........but do not want to recognize the rights these ranchers have.

I said it first........"Isn't it funny how we have come full circle."

feather_duster's picture
feather_duster
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 9/10/06

somebody grab a shovel already..

Longshot's picture
Longshot
Offline
Joined: 12/1/03

gst Said:

Longshot Said:

gst Said:
So saying someone is wiling to over looking something now equates to claiming that person approves of it now?

That remedial English class is starting to fill up boys.

So you mean overlook as in you wanting to overlook any wrong doing by Bundy right?  gst don't you get tired of having the liberal victim mentality.  The typical liberal who cannot claim any resposibility and can only blaim everyone esle. 

So then if you wish to "claim responsibility of wrong doing lnogshot, does that same responsibility apply to the Federal govt or not?
You and a few others seem to wish to completely ignore the Federal govts "wrong doing" when they moved to end the multiple use agreements these alnds were held under because of lawsuits form the "sportsmen/enviromental"  groups you support.
gst please show the quote where I said the government did not do any wrong doing.  Stop making things up.  This still does not make Bundy's action right.


So longshot should the Federal govt accept responsibility for the wrong doing in removing these ranchers from these lands in violation of the multiple use agreeements these lands were held under for generations??  I would think so.

There are court cases pending all over the west over this very thing. And despite rons legal crystal ball, the Wayne Hage case set a precedence never before set that may open some peoples eyes a bit. (at least those that want tobe opened)

 

That may be gst, but obviously the judge in Bundy's case didn't believe it applied.  You keep asking what people know about water rights.  Let me tell you that no matter what you may think or what your opinions are the final say are the courts.  The judge makes the decision on what case law applies Perhaos he made the ruling inbetween vists with Sen Reid in DC.  Again you want to infre this without proof.  I thought you only wanted the facts.
and if you don't like the judgment you have the right to appeal.  Bundy hasn't appealed and instead decides since he doesn't like the decision he will ignore it.  Regardless of anyone else's wrong doing he broke the law by ignoring the courts.
 Exactly what was the case the judge ruled against Bundy for longshot?  I don't know that answer, do you.  It realy doesn't matter if Bundry doesn't agree he has the right to appeal.

Boy go to a meeting for a couple hours and things get interesting!

I answered your questions gst now answer mine.  You don't believe in perpetual easements to be sold to a government entity (the public).  Are you also against a rancher having a perpetual easement (grazing rights) to public owned land?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:
His cowboy with the American flag PR bit is backfiring with many people.  Everyone I talk to has simply written him off as another Gordon Kahl.   The pony and flag routine they planned to impress everyone with backfired.  So gst what flag are you going to carry on your pony for the 4th of July parade? Do you recognize the United States and it's constitution?  I think that's a fair answer to anyone who supports Bundy since he doesn't recognize the United States yet ranchers support him.   

plainsman, this post ranks right up there with the most petty, stupid posts of all time.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Longshot Said:

Fritz the Cat Said:
Longshot,

You missed one. If you sign a perpetual easement with the fed/gov they will ceratinly go to the register of deeds office and record it.

Split title.

You may own the naked ground (possession) but somebody else owns the "use". 

Now apply it in reverse and take a look see at what those ranchers own. 

Plainsman Dick Monson Ron Gilmore have been arguing for years that a willing seller should be able to sell a perpetual easement to the fed/gov if they want to.  

The fed/gov entered into a contract with these ranchers years ago. Now they want to reneg.

Isn't it funny how things come full circle.

An easement being either permanent, temporary, or designated time frame in only an interest in real property.  I didn't miss anything.  You can subdivide real property, but you cannot spit title.  If someone owns the use of the property it's an easement.  That person's name is not on the title nor can it be split.  You either own it or you don't and an easement to someone or group is not ownership.  Now I know you and gst don't believe in perpetual easements to be sold to a government entity (the public).  Are you also against a rancher having a perpetual easement (grazing rights) to public owned land?

longshot what do you know about water rights in these western lands?

Longshot's picture
Longshot
Offline
Joined: 12/1/03

gst Said:

Longshot Said:

Fritz the Cat Said:
Longshot,

You missed one. If you sign a perpetual easement with the fed/gov they will ceratinly go to the register of deeds office and record it.

Split title.

You may own the naked ground (possession) but somebody else owns the "use". 

Now apply it in reverse and take a look see at what those ranchers own. 

Plainsman Dick Monson Ron Gilmore have been arguing for years that a willing seller should be able to sell a perpetual easement to the fed/gov if they want to.  

The fed/gov entered into a contract with these ranchers years ago. Now they want to reneg.

Isn't it funny how things come full circle.

An easement being either permanent, temporary, or designated time frame in only an interest in real property.  I didn't miss anything.  You can subdivide real property, but you cannot spit title.  If someone owns the use of the property it's an easement.  That person's name is not on the title nor can it be split.  You either own it or you don't and an easement to someone or group is not ownership.  Now I know you and gst don't believe in perpetual easements to be sold to a government entity (the public).  Are you also against a rancher having a perpetual easement (grazing rights) to public owned land?

longshot what do you know about water rights in these western lands?

We've been through this already.  Again, we can all have out opinion, but the courts are the final say.  You don't seem to understand that.  I do have some experience with water rights, but my opinion is just that, an opinion.  Just as you have your opinion and so do the attorneys who argue their opinion.  The judge has the final judgment which has already been made.  Now how about answering my question in my last post.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Longshot Said:

Fritz the Cat Said:
Longshot,

You missed one. If you sign a perpetual easement with the fed/gov they will ceratinly go to the register of deeds office and record it.

Split title.

You may own the naked ground (possession) but somebody else owns the "use". 

Now apply it in reverse and take a look see at what those ranchers own. 

Plainsman Dick Monson Ron Gilmore have been arguing for years that a willing seller should be able to sell a perpetual easement to the fed/gov if they want to.  

The fed/gov entered into a contract with these ranchers years ago. Now they want to reneg.

Isn't it funny how things come full circle.

An easement being either permanent, temporary, or designated time frame in only an interest in real property.  I didn't miss anything.  You can subdivide real property, but you cannot spit title.  If someone owns the use of the property it's an easement.  That person's name is not on the title nor can it be split.  You either own it or you don't and an easement to someone or group is not ownership.  Now I know you and gst don't believe in perpetual easements to be sold to a government entity (the public).  Are you also against a rancher having a perpetual easement (grazing rights) to public owned land?

longshot a bit of reading for you and others.

Note the difference between eastern lands and western lands water rights here in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_right

Now from that link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_appropriation_water_rights

Overview

The legal details vary from state to state; however, the general principle is that water rights are unconnected to land ownership, and can be sold or mortgaged like other property. The first person to use a quantity of water from a water source for a beneficial use has the right to continue to use that quantity of water for that purpose. Subsequent users can use the remaining water for their own beneficial purposes provided that they do not impinge on the rights of previous users.

Beneficial use is commonly defined as agricultural, industrial or household use. Ecological purposes, such as maintaining a natural body of water and the wildlife that depends on it, were not initially deemed as beneficial uses in some Western states but have been accepted in some jurisdictions. The extent to which private parties may own such rights varies among the states.[4]


pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08

Good interview with Wayne Hage, Jr., who was at the Bundy ranch during the BLM standoff starting at approximately 5:40.

www1.gcnlive.com/CMS/index.php/archivespage

Pages