I can post however I like, thank you. OK, fine. Now I am talking about you.
Oops! I'm sure Bundy is Stoked you're standing up for him and his "dissatisfaction fueled by preferential treatment".
Good job.
Yesterday - Bundy Ranch
- Thread starter GoJazz
- Start date
I can post however I like, thank you. OK, fine. Now I am talking about you.
Oops! I'm sure Bundy is Stoked you're standing up for him and his "dissatisfaction fueled by preferential treatment".
Good job.
Give me a damn break. I was the first to call him a racist on here and I've already said he was wrong legally. Understanding (or theorizing as I was trying to in your quote) is not the same as condoning, agreeing or even defending. Nice try but no.
You sound like Adam Lanza's defense attorney.
That desert area will sustain a substantial number of cows. The area gets sufficient rain to produce an abundance of desert plants....most years. . . and a few very wet years, relatively speaking. flowers, scrub brush of several kinds, and is heavily populated with some bushes about four feet high, a little sage and a lot of chapparal. Even the BLM knows that land can sustain more than a thousand cattle. They figure on some deer and some antelope as well. . . . and ten thousand rabbits as well. The cows do not tear up roots like sheep do. Mountain sheep have been re-introduced into the area, and it is one of the premier ranges for those particular animals in this country.
cows are beneficial to even this kind of desert because they don't destroy the seeds in their digestion, but transport them and dump them out on barren spots in a nice pile of moist fertilizer that will help absorb and retain rainwater. In effect, they do millions of dollars worth of re-seeding and beneficial improvements on this land.
Solar, and wind, power is a low yield technology that requires years of operation to return the initial costs, and pretty high maintenance for the remainder of a pretty short functional life. We will always need carbon fuels, even though we should turn to a new safer generation of nuclear power generation plants. If cows don't graze off the excess growth even from desert areas like this, we would still need to remove it as a fire hazard and a threat to all kinds of wildlife, including turtles. It is the natural carbon cycle in our ecosystem. Cows will reduce wildfires, which I have seen in deserts areas just like this, in summers after wet winters and where grazing was curtailed by the BLM mismanagement. Cows will actually do a better job than the BLM has done in recent years in keeping the ecology pretty well managed, at some ideal number.
People interested in discussing grazing practices need a realistic notion of what an acre is, as well as a square mile. . . . Go take a cow out on this kind of land and see which of you gets hungry faster, you or the cow. Typically, one cow can be sustained through a whole year on one to four square miles of this kind of desert.
What BLM scientists do is study the plant populations by a sampling method, and calculate the food yield, and throw in a big fudge factor. I've seen overgrazed land, and I don't like it. I've spent my life believing it is beneficial to let organic stuff like grass die off and go into the soil, thinking it would help retain water in the soil. But scientists who have actually studied the processes involved have found that cattle grazing is beneficial.
Here's what they did. They took some substantial plots of equivalent land, and fence them off. One of each pair of plots they let cows graze at the customary practices, on the other paired plot they kept the cows off. Guess what. They found the grazed areas became more heavily populated with all kinds of plants than the ungrazed plots. Of course, if you just graze excess cattle to the extent that the plants are all eaten down to nothing, you can damage the land.
But 1000 cows on a hundred square miles of this desert is not overgrazing. I'm not sure what the exact area is, as fenced or allotted by the BLM. But the fact is, in this case, it was the issue of the tortoise that was the reason for reducing the allotment to 150 from 1000, and that reason was not actually a valid reason. The turtles are not impacted by the cows, but are in fact benefited. The reason these turtles were disappearing have to be looked for in some other issue. I know when I was a kid, a lot of people were bringing turtles into town and they'd get run over on the streets. . . .
Last edited:
Is there anyone here more familiar with current solar technology? I don't know much about it but this statement seems woefully inaccurate. If there is a user with that bit of knowledge maybe move the conversation to the Solar thread from 2011.
Thanks.
I know what it costs to produce a pound of aluminum, and a lot of other high-tech alloys used in constructing stuff of all kinds, including computers and cars. As I understand it, we are now constructing solar and wind electricity generating devices which have a payback time of about ten years, with useful lives of perhaps twenty. . . . and I'm not all that thrilled at seeing the solar complex along I-15 near the Nevada/California border. Fries overflying birds, I hear. Is a serious glare problem for motorists three miles away. . . . but yeah, let's get some updated info on this subject. I'll look for it in some other thread. . .
The bolded part I agree with.. but certainly the bought politicians are just as, or more so, guilty as the corporate money.
See below.
Because, this.
I have a BLM-administered grazing allotment of some 25 square miles. It's a different type of desert, being at a higher elevation, but it gets about the same rainfall. I know my area was overgrazed by the prior owner. I have the property which was the first base of the first grazer in that valley, and the history of it was that he just turned some cows loose. About ten years later, after he was killed by a goshute native whom he cheated on mining work in the mountains nearby, his widow rounded up twelve thousand head of cattle and sold them off, and sold the ranch and went back to American Fork quite nicely provisioned. The grass was pretty deep then, from some accounts. It was also statistically a wetter weather pattern at that time.
The BLM managers figure the area will sustain about one third the grazing the State of Utah School Trust Lands managers calculate. The State charges me more for the use of the state land accordingly. I believe prior owners of the allotment overgrazed it, and I have, following the BLM management undergrazed it. My cows don't go over the whole territory, and the areas where they have been hanging out have improved remarkably in contrast to the other areas where they just don't go.
Obviously, I believe, there is a good use at some rate substantially more that what the BLM is permitting today, but there have been users who did overgraze this place before I came here.
This is 100% false. It was a reduction to protect the desert tortoise.
He's not claiming ownership of the grazing land. He's claiming it's open state lands and therefore has the right to use it. I'm too lazy to explain this for the 20th time.
He is the last rancher left. 900 cows, that's it. On, literally millions of acres. Does every acre have to be pristine desert or a new resort?
*And for the eleventy hundredth time, I AM NOT defending Cliven Bundy. I am calling out the criminal politicians and their tactics to remove ranchers (and others) from lands so they can sell the land to cronies. (that was way over-simplified, I know)
In the early decades of range grazing in the West of the USA, courts treated grazing rights as a real property right. . . . in cases of sale or exchange of grazing rights they were 'real property' in the sense that they had real value and real use. It was not actual ownership of the land, but a claim of precedence on the right to make grazing use of it, until the government passed title to a settler. That cause conflict between cattlemen and farmers all over the West, and was not really an internally-consistent policy or law.
But I agree with the fees on the basis of their original stated intent.. . .. to pay for improvements and fences and research and good management by competent scientists. The lands belong to the people of the United States, and the people generally have an interest in these lands, and we should insist on competent management based on sound policy just as much as we should protect ranchers with grazing interests and preserve the grazing value of their grazing right.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Anyone else find it interesting that OneBlow is ripping on Hantlers for doing THE EXACT thing that he does in every single discussion of race? He grew up in certain areas where racism was prevalent, so he's automatically the Auhority on anything/everything that has to do with racism. Hantlers has grown up and worked by Reservations his whole life, but his opinion is invalid. Because OneBlow said so.
I love you, Eric, but damn, man.
"There are about 45 million acres of public rangelands in Nevada. These rangelands are divided into 745 grazing allotments. There are 550 operators, or permittees, with a total of 635 permits to graze livestock."
https://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/grazing.html
This page says the total acreage of BLM land in Nevada is about 48 million:
https://www.wildlandfire.com/docs/2007/western-states-data-public-land.htm
So, the answer to your question is "no". There appears to be plenty of government rangeland available to ranchers in Nevada.
The total acreage of BLM land set aside as "wilderness" in Nevada is 2,056,545. That is about 4%. Another 2.5 million-or-so acres is designated as a "wilderness study area". I guess that may or may not eventually become "wilderness", but is probably managed currently as "wilderness".
To summarize:
* About 90% of BLM land in Nevada (significantly more than 50% of the state) is public rangeland.
* About 8% of BLM land in Nevada is currently managed as wilderness (around 5% of the total land in the state).
Last edited:
Thanks for agreeing.
Response in the other thread, because I promised to do so.
Duck Rodgers
Well-Known Member
And the part the New York Times/Media Matters/HuffPOS conveniently left out of that Bundy quote?
Shocker. And all the reactionaries across the country ate it all up. He's guilty of hanging on to some outdated vocabulary. Boo hoo.
Shocker. And all the reactionaries across the country ate it all up. He's guilty of hanging on to some outdated vocabulary. Boo hoo.
Last edited:
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
He's unnecessarily lumping. Widespread generalization of "the negro" is no different than using "Today's blacks," with the exception that the reception of the terminology he used has more furor. It wasn't just the language used that was offensive, it was the message as well. He could have just said, "Blacks are lazy, but it's better than it was." Would have meant basically the same thing.