|
|
 Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
   
Location: ND | komet. - 2014-04-13 8:41 PM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-13 8:39 PM komet. - 2014-04-13 8:38 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:35 PM komet. - 2014-04-13 8:24 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:15 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM What would John Wayne do? And...who is John Galt?  So was John W... If you want a real American hero... look at James Stewart.. John W was an actor... James served his country... So is Obozo to some people..
to a lot of people..... | |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:30 PM Here ya go....someone who isn't ignorant of ranch life in the west, 2014:
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Btw: Did all of you 'landlords' inherit this by birth? Do you have a vested interest in it?
The fed does NOT own this land. It's in a 'reserved' status...
1) I inherited nothing. I paid my way through college by working the tobacco fields of Appalachia. My herd is not my primary source of income and every GD head was paid for from the fruits of my labor. They graze on leased private land that costs many times more that the paltry sum charged for those crony capitalist corrupt BLM grants.
2) yes the fed does own that land. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| dhdqhllc - 2014-04-13 8:35 PM the govt is abusive and out of control but just because everyone is looking for an anti-govt hero, doesn't make Cliven Bundy the martyr you are looking for......in fact, this example is likely going to be used by many in our govt as an example of why the ag industry is getting fat off subsidies.....and unfortunately, many are going to be conviced by this...
Boom.
Prepare for unintended consequences. | |
| | |
 BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | I have a serious question. The federal government "owns" about one-third of the entire land mass of the USA. Why? Most of this is in the west. I'm sure many of you have seen those maps that illustrate, in color, the vast amount of land supposedly "owned" by the federal government. Why does the fed need to own 85% of Nevada, and nearly 50% of California, for example? Can someone explain this? Is it because most of this land is "useless" anyway? If you draw a line from the Montana-North Dakota border all the way down to Mexico, about two-thirds of the land is federally owned. Everything east of there is probably 5-10% government owned. | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:48 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:30 PM Here ya go....someone who isn't ignorant of ranch life in the west, 2014:
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Btw: Did all of you 'landlords' inherit this by birth? Do you have a vested interest in it?
The fed does NOT own this land. It's in a 'reserved' status...
1) I inherited nothing. I paid my way through college by working the tobacco fields of Appalachia. My herd is not my primary source of income and every GD head was paid for from the fruits of my labor. They graze on leased private land that costs many times more that the paltry sum charged for those crony capitalist corrupt BLM grants.
2) yes the fed does own that land.
Paltry?? Millions?? How many million do you make from your cows? | |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Ok...time to bring this 'pahr-tey' to an end.
Here's the jurisdictional map of all our 'public lands'...have fun.
http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/Jurisdiction.pdf
http://www.blm.gov/flpma/FLPMA.pdf
http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/Jurisdiction-UT.pdf
The Meat:
http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/Jurisdiction-0report.pdf
http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/Jurisdiction-NV.pdf
Edited by musikmaker 2014-04-13 9:08 PM
| |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| komet. - 2014-04-13 8:56 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:30 PM Here ya go....someone who isn't ignorant of ranch life in the west, 2014:
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Btw: Did all of you 'landlords' inherit this by birth? Do you have a vested interest in it?
The fed does NOT own this land. It's in a 'reserved' status...
1) I inherited nothing. I paid my way through college by working the tobacco fields of Appalachia. My herd is not my primary source of income and every GD head was paid for from the fruits of my labor. They graze on leased private land that costs many times more that the paltry sum charged for those crony capitalist corrupt BLM grants.
2) yes the fed does own that land. Paltry?? Millions?? How many million do you make from your cows?
What I make from my cattle is none of your business and has nothing to do with the cost of leases. His lease was not millions of dollars. It was $1.35 per head per month. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM komet. - 2014-04-13 8:56 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:30 PM Here ya go....someone who isn't ignorant of ranch life in the west, 2014:
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Btw: Did all of you 'landlords' inherit this by birth? Do you have a vested interest in it?
The fed does NOT own this land. It's in a 'reserved' status...
1) I inherited nothing. I paid my way through college by working the tobacco fields of Appalachia. My herd is not my primary source of income and every GD head was paid for from the fruits of my labor. They graze on leased private land that costs many times more that the paltry sum charged for those crony capitalist corrupt BLM grants.
2) yes the fed does own that land. Paltry?? Millions?? How many million do you make from your cows?
Look...what I was asking was how the general public feels they 'own' this land and are 'landlords'...every area will have it's hardships. If it were easy, someone else would be doing it. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | musikmaker - 2014-04-13 9:09 PM
TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM komet. - 2014-04-13 8:56 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:30 PM Here ya go....someone who isn't ignorant of ranch life in the west, 2014:
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Btw: Did all of you 'landlords' inherit this by birth? Do you have a vested interest in it?
The fed does NOT own this land. It's in a 'reserved' status...
1) I inherited nothing. I paid my way through college by working the tobacco fields of Appalachia. My herd is not my primary source of income and every GD head was paid for from the fruits of my labor. They graze on leased private land that costs many times more that the paltry sum charged for those crony capitalist corrupt BLM grants.
2) yes the fed does own that land. Paltry?? Millions?? How many million do you make from your cows?
So we go back to.. "Public Land" this man is part of the PUBLIC.... and his family has run cows there since the 1800S... and TXBO!! Maybe you would like to give your land back to the Mexicans?? | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| komet. - 2014-04-13 9:23 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 9:09 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:03 PM komet. - 2014-04-13 8:56 PM TXBO - 2014-04-13 8:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-13 8:30 PM Here ya go....someone who isn't ignorant of ranch life in the west, 2014:
Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Btw: Did all of you 'landlords' inherit this by birth? Do you have a vested interest in it?
The fed does NOT own this land. It's in a 'reserved' status...
1) I inherited nothing. I paid my way through college by working the tobacco fields of Appalachia. My herd is not my primary source of income and every GD head was paid for from the fruits of my labor. They graze on leased private land that costs many times more that the paltry sum charged for those crony capitalist corrupt BLM grants.
2) yes the fed does own that land. Paltry?? Millions?? How many million do you make from your cows? So we go back to.. "Public Land" this man is part of the PUBLIC.... and his family has run cows there since the 1800S... and TXBO!! Maybe you would like to give your land back to the Mexicans??
You're not making any sense. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1561
| Texans know NOTHING about public and, NOTHING! | |
| | |
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| Itsme - 2014-04-13 10:13 PM
Texans know NOTHING about public and, NOTHING!
well that's going to start a fight LOL | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Itsme - 2014-04-13 10:13 PM Texans know NOTHING about public and, NOTHING!
Texans that have lived in NV and AZ do. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1561
| TXBO - 2014-04-13 10:22 PM
Itsme - 2014-04-13 10:13 PM Texans know NOTHING about public and, NOTHING!
Texans that have lived in NV and AZ do.
When did the feds buy this land and how much was it per acre? | |
| | |
  Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Itsme - 2014-04-13 10:13 PM
Texans know NOTHING about public and, NOTHING!
Just ask the Texans ranching on The Red River what they know about Public Land and the BLM?
http://misguidedchildren.com/domestic-affairs/2014/04/red-river-rum...
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/04/11/red-river-rumble-...
http://www.rfdtv.com/story/25206377/oklahoma-texas-border-dispute-h...
http://www.dailypaul.com/316530/blm-now-trying-to-seize-90000-acres...
http://www.texomashomepage.com/story/concern-over-property-along-re...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/22s7z2/blm_also_trying...
Are YOU absolutely sure you are educated on this matter? After all YOU were the One who supported 'Firing The Shot' in an Shoot Scrape....................
You and Finney Quarter Horses really need to get together. Ya'll would excellent company for each other. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | A relevant series of questions:
A) Why does the BLM have Snipers?
B) Why was the airspace over the Nevada Controversy closed?
C) Why was the BLM showing so much force to begin with? | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1561
|
Im not reading your links...
Isn't that private land theyre trying to grab? | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1561
| Nevada=87% public land
texas=4% | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Itsme - 2014-04-13 10:56 PM
Im not reading your links...
Isn't that private land theyre trying to grab?
You have the privilege of remaining ignorant. Yes, it is private land. Overbearing BLM at it again. Or I should say Overbearing Government which is what BLM actually is. Still want to 'Fire The Shot'? And be the One responsible for telling Survivors that You started The Fire Fight that claimed Their Loved Ones?
That is not something I would care to claim.
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-13 11:05 PM
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Itsme - 2014-04-13 11:00 PM
Nevada=87% public land
texas=4%
And your point is? Other than you can actually do simple math......................... | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line