[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]
Well-Known Member
Not really, this is a very large area. The cows will also drift away from loud noises and construction. Such as building water tanks and dirt roads.
???
Not really, this is a very large area. The cows will also drift away from loud noises and construction. Such as building water tanks and dirt roads.
Not really, this is a very large area. The cows will also drift away from loud noises and construction. Such as building water tanks and dirt roads.
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];814007 said:
Even a large area of low food yield land will be devastated by 1000 cattle. Need a HELL of a lot more water than the area produces to revitalize it, which ruins the natural habitat of the area, which is one of the factors in this case.
Even a large area of low food yield land will be devastated by 1000 cattle. Need a HELL of a lot more water than the area produces to revitalize it, which ruins the natural habitat of the area, which is one of the factors in this case.
So then the debate is more what constitutes "improvement". Correct?
So then the debate is more what constitutes "improvement". Correct?
Nothing a good ole fashioned solar plant can't fix.
I find it hard to believe desert/steppe land can sustain itself when being grazed by 1000 cattle. Buildings and roads aren't going to change that. The only way to sustain the land as it is currently is to pump resources into it. Hard to consider that an improvement.
Solar panel in and of itself would have the land produce more than what would be going into it.
The lengths some will go to defend their defense of a racist piece of ****. Wow.
A cowboy hat and a gun on a turd is a turd, folks.
Well the claim is that they have placed road ways, water tanks, irrigation lines...can be argued as improvements to the land. Just not enviromental improvements which seems to be what you are arguing. I wonder if that was a specific issue decided in court.
The lengths some will go to defend their defense of a racist piece of ****. Wow.
A cowboy hat and a gun on a turd is a turd, folks.
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];814020 said:This is A PART of the debate. It was a massive MISSING PART early on, which is why I raised a fuss.
I still have no idea what you're talking about with noise and commotion. Unfortunately, I gotta run.
Are you even reading this thread? The general consensus is that Bundy is wrong legally as well as a bigot/racist. But we are beyond arguing about him and are talking about the details of the case. Damn man...
This has much more to do with other issues than defending one rancher.
I actually can't think of anyone in this thread that is actually defending Bundy no matter what on this whole situation.
And you're under the impression that all you have to do is work hard and you'll get everything you've ever wanted?
How white are you exactly?
Exactly where did I say that? C'mon…I didn't say anything remotely like that.
If you have opportunities, and you don't work hard, you aren't going to get far.
If you don't have opportunities, and you do work hard, you may not get far, but at least you have a chance.
If you have opportunities, and you work hard, the chances of getting farther are increased. Nothing is definite, but yeah, I think that if you work hard the chances of getting further are increased. You're living proof of that.
Yes, I'm reading the thread.
.......
I'm not even referring to you or your posts. Why do you need to be involved and comment on every post in every thread even when no one is talking to you? It's annoying.