Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Bundy lied, and Fox let him.

You need to go and plead Bundy's case for him. Maybe he'll get a better more sympathetic judge? Maybe not too.

My commentary isn't about legalities in today's liberal society... it's about reality and consequences.

Kent

I'll bet that was educational for a kid from Staten Island!

Huzzah!

Sycamore

Kent,


Boquillas is corporately run, by a hard-nosed old cattle-buyer, who has the capital to make it work. And the quality of land to make it worthwhile.

Bunkerville it doesn't compare to the Boquillas, for the reasons I asked you to address before: elevation, precipitation and vegetation type (carrying capacity)



Boquillas is 10 times the ranch that ALL of Cliven Bundys allotment was in 1993, (then 600,000 acres). (measured by what matters, productivity)

Cliven Bundy's allotment, since 1993 ( now 160,000? acres) is 1/4 of what it was.

So you are trying to compare the investments of two ranches, that differ in productivity by a factor of 40!

You are also insinuating that ONLY Bundy did or paid for any infrastructure work on the ranch.

You haven't touched on how much the BLM and the NRCS (used to be SCS) have put into the Bundy ranch over the years.


If you go back and look, YOU were the one that claimed Cliven was " already putting that much back into the land every couple years."





I don't doubt that ranching is hard, it is even harder now that wages, fuel, trucks, medicine, vets, etc cost more.

It's even harder on sub-marginal land (creosote bush?)

You've got to get real that there probably wasn't much infrastructure out there, most of the cows didn't get far from the Virgin is my guess, (another problem).


Sycamore

Well...

President Barack Obama�s request for the 2015 fiscal year calls for an increase of $2.8 million in funding for the agency�s wild horse and burro program, and would allow it to continue studies to develop more effective contraceptive drugs and techniques.

There ya go...

Kent

My wish is that wild horses and burros could be extirpated. (shot)

A bounty of $25/head would provide employment, dog food, and increased forage for cattle and wild game.

Just my wishful thinking.

Sycamore

Hey, Captain Lib-Soc.

Let's get some badazz ponies and pack rigging, and see who can get one packed and on the trail without losing and dangling chit all over the place.
Your "I'm a REAL Arizonan schtick reminds me of Bundy's little problem with his MOUTH.
You ever ridden for the chairman of a provincial cattle association ?
Kicked 1300 head of Two and three year olds loose in God's country for the Summer, and been charged with looking after their welfare ?

Blow me, Sic


GTC

Ranches vary. Hell, the terrain varies on the same ranch pretty good in places. Especially one with half a million acres or more.

Syc, cattle don't stay by the river, because if they did, there wouldn't be anything but a muddy trickle through the desert.

Nearest river to the desert BLM that I ranch is the Rio Grande about 120 miles away. So, they put in pretty sophisticated water systems that feed troughs through the area. Pastures are usually separated by where the water is in relation to graze. A pasture fence does it's job by keeping cattle out of a certain area, as much as it does by confining them to a given area. The water systems are indeed what lets ranchers take advantage of large areas of desert, and the cattle are indeed spread out on the desert.

The water systems take constant monitoring and maintenance. All you have to do is neglect checking and let a pasture run dry of water in the desert, and in a couple of days you have enough dead cattle laying around to eat your profits for the last 5 years.

If what holds true about most of the West, the bottomlands and river bottoms were homesteaded and deeded, while the vast stretches of desert were where most of the grazing permit lies. Even in the mountainous areas, you see the valleys and creeks as being deeded, and the high mountain ranges as being natl. forest lands.

The deeded lands along the rivers are usually used for growing hay or other farm use that feed the cattle in the times when there is not enough graze, like in winter. That land isn't used to graze cattle much, because there are better productive uses for it.

So, in essence , you are agreeing you don't have jack-schidt experience with desert ranching, right?

You didn't have to tell us, we already knew.

Sycamore

I changed the title on this post, because I really didn't care for the old one.

I have never met Mr. Cliven Bundy, and I have no reason to doubt his integrity. (nor any desire to disparage him or his family)

I do believe he has been mislead about his rights, and his relationship to the BLM, vis-a-vis the family ranch.

Sycamore

He isn't quite as well spoken as Hage, for sure.

But all it takes to see that same premise Bundy is using was successfully used by Hage to win court cases against the same agencies and dealing with the same type circumstances of being pushed off the land, is to let yourself see it.

You don't have to watch the whole thing to understand what they are doing here, but anyone that does will be the wiser for it.

http://vimeo.com/8520897#at=0

Rockinbbar,

You've pretty much described the Virgin... " a muddy trickle through the desert"

This is some barren-ass country, and 120 degrees in the shade, if there were shade, which there isn't. Basically runs from Mesquite to Lake Mead.

I understand the strategy of creating watering points to spread out the animals and access forage. Also salt is used to some extent to move cows around here.

It is unclear to me how much of that infrastructure was provided by .gov and how much by the rancher.

Sycamore

p/s nice 1911 in your avatar.

One of the differences in the cases may be the surface water, ditch rights. I think those were part of the 1866 law, and part of Hages case.

Not so sure if windmills and plastic pipe, put in in the 1960's and 1970's, with govt money, will hold the same force of precedent.

Sycamore

Thanks. I've had that Colt for years. Built it around a very basic 1911. Gave it a combat hammer and beavertail grip safety, match trigger that's adjustable for travel, adjustable sights, match barrel and bushings. It shoots pretty well.

To answer your questions about who pays for what:

Sometimes it can be a cost share for the installation. Usually the government agency provides the material and the rancher provides the labor to install it. Plus, the rancher pays the entire costs of maintenance for as long as he uses it. If the pump in the well quits, the rancher pays to have it pulled and replaced. He pays the electric or other fuel bills, and for someone to look at the entire system every 2-3 days to insure nothing is wrong....but, there usually is, so they fix it.

The Cost Share that I mentioned must be applied for. Many times YEARS in advance, and then undergo a couple of more years of environmental impact studies, archaeological studies, and then letting a 20 year old girl redline the project because she has a degree in environmental sciences.

It's just not worth all that to get some new black plastic piping and a few water tubs, so most ranchers just replace and repair what is needed as they need to. The less noise you make, the less trouble you'll have, and the for damn sure the less regulation you will have to swallow.

FWIW, I agree about the wild horses and burros.

The best birth control measure is a 170 gr Power Point out of a Winchester.

Those feral animals that the liberals are so romantically delusional about are NOT the real mustangs trotting through their dreams any more than the crossbred killers they keep releasing and protecting are Mexican wolves.

I would personally lead the effort to kill 'em all, and deliver them in a pile to the feet of the idiots that keep protecting and importing them.

The same premise applies when you consider that the water is what makes the land usable. Bundy does own the water rights. And without the water the land is pretty unusable.

That is why the BLM was destroying the water infrastructure with bulldozers at the same time they rounded the cattle up. They wanted to make the land unusable to Bundy. In doing so, they crossed another line in the sand and broke laws pertaining to his private property and his ability to make use of the water rights he owns.


http://water.nv.gov/data/permit/results.cfm

Absolute irrefutable LOGIC here.

Those goddam THINGS they bred up North of Hinton, to send to Montana and Idaho had nothing to do with being Alberta Timber Wolves, either.

Had some brain dead Lady from Bisbee ( Haight Ashbury East) trying to chew on me about this subject (Wild Horses / Wolves / Jaguar )... These people are misinformed, Yes.

...At a certain point, that LEVEL of ignorance becomes a force for EVIL.

Weird that, "Kissy, Huggy, Feely," types indulge therein, so readily, and so passionately.

GTC

If your going to listen to his point of view, then you might as well read this one. It's on the same subject, and old Bundy was quoted in this 20 odd years ago.



Rage, Race and Violence on the Western Range

...At a certain point, that LEVEL of ignorance becomes a force for EVIL.
==============

Yes, my friend, it sure does.

.gov didn't have much money for range improvements until 1976 act and it was the 1978 PRIA act from congress before they had substantial money.

Before 1967 the .gov spent almost all it's budget on the agency, in 1967 it spent .10 to the rancher's 1.25... which was an improvement.

from 1975 to 1979 the agency took 2.5mil per year from the lessee's 50% share for agency costs to build personnel. In 1982 BLM spent 13mil on range improvements. The ranchers by this time were holding theirs, and the same or less was actually being spent compared to the 60s.

Also seems BLM was fudging a bit on how well improved the range conditions were to continue expanding it's budget from congress.

'Visions upon the land' has a bunch of history on the BLM and FS expansion through the 1900s. You can pretty much see who built these infrastructures starting the the 1800s.

Kent

We know that today as liberalism.

It is a tumor on America.

But rather than seek the cure, the voting public is stocking up on the cancer causing Kool-Aid.