BUNDY'S SON IN OREGON!!! (LOOK!)

Again the pendulum swings back and forth.

I am a conservationist,builder and a carpenter,lifelong outdoorsman.Done some ranching too.Worked in a mill and picked fruit and stacked hay. Retired Park Ranger. Rancher again now.

There was a reason for the EPA and such.
Same with Park Rangers,Texas Rangers and most of the law enforcement agencies outside the US Gov. Military,US Cavalry, in the west.
Rampant exploitaion,abuse and disregard of the law.

The bunny huggers used the owl to a tee and folks bought the BS. The reason the mills closed in CA and probably NM is the mills don't want to pay you $16/hr to work there,and the rampant rape and pillage of a easily sustainable commodity with no recourse to the raper of the woods.And it's on OUR dime then.
Same just happened with the San Juan spill and the violator never doing any rehab let alone reimbursment to the US tax payer,THE OWNER.EPA effed up and gets all the blame. WE pay.
I agree with Paul wholeheartedly regarding ranching and welfare ranchers. I know some of the finest stewards of the land and conervasionists , are ranchers.
But I know more than a few that over graze,never pay and always blame someone else for being in the ranching business and not making it.All while collecting a Gov. hand out at the same time.
And Stoney, you would be hard pressed to find some cheaper grazing than US GOV. land in Catron County.And you would still have that full time job of watching your bottom end ,stock and deal with it full time. Before the wolf was the bear,was the Apache, was the wolf& bear & lion was the Comacheros.Ranching is not easy and most I know are at it full time. That's ranching and farming for ya.
There were very few ranches in Catron county before homestead act,started here in 1870's as part of the Apache wars that would last til 1900.Then the rush again in 30's.Last in the lower 48. So if a ranch was here in 1870 it was helped by the US Cavalry or left over from before,you know the 300 yrs of Spain and Mexico. San Fransisco River and all. Elfuego Baca ring a bell? And Not likely to be here during the Apache Wars for sure, or operating with out Geronimos knowledge. Then t was settled by the Buffalo Soldiers because they were not afraid of the Apaches and most of the Mtns are named for them,some still show Niggerhead Butte on a map to this day. Stolen or forced out.
So cheep Gov. grazing with the dealing with an over reaching,overloaded and under funded and understaffed agency the down side.BLM or Forest circus. Any Gubbermet agency except the defence dept. same same.
Are what some of these agencies and Dept.s of US Gov. Effed up,you can say that again in spades,hellya. Is it the same as it was even ten years ago,ranching hell no.
But go try and be a builder or a small business owner and make it nowadays.No effing way.Not in this economy and enviroment.
Do they not pay their bills on time and deal with some new BS thrown your way for today and then whine? Not many who succeed.
If you can't stand the heat,get out of the kitchen. If you can't follow this weeks FS rules try something else. Is it effed up ,hell ya.
Breaking the law and not paying your bills won't help either.
And the Bundies are nut jobs and armed insurectionist and terrorists in my book.
I think and expect more of you than that Tom.
 
I'm lucky to have grown up in a small town in Northern AZ. I was around three big time ranchers and my dad was close with one of them. I have seen the changes over the past 25 years. An example is locked gates that were open before, private property and all, open for anyone to go through. I still have access but need to let them know I'm out there. That is because of the irresponsible generation that came after me. I also notice the ranchers in other areas. If you look at their land, you can tell how hard the first and second generations worked by looking at the windmills and cattle tanks. It's obvious they were installed in the 40s or 50s, now some of them are wrecks, long since been abandoned. It's like it got too hard and they kind of gave up. Either gave up or slowed way down. I've also payed attention to family businesses and noticed that most make it only two generations. A third generation is rare. The third usually sells it. It looks to me like some of them are into
making excuses. That's what I see here, a bunch of excuse makers. I'm not talking about all of them because I've had mostly good luck with ranchers.
It's nice to hear from people like NM Paul and 440 that can relate to this.
 
You're correct, government grazing is much cheaper than private lease. that's why it's considered so valuble by allotment holders.

This band of losers keeps trying to make this a constitutional issue, by they don't get specific as to how. what part of going to jail for arson is unconstitutional? what part of a federal refuge that's been in service for over a century is unconstitutional ? what part of restrictions or a fee on a grazing allotment is unconstitutional ? what part of the feds owning and managing land is unconstitutional?

Anyone who supports these clowns should first define what EXACTLY it is they support them for. because all I can find they stand for is a search for why they're losers and who they can find to blame for their failures.
















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>You're correct, government grazing is much
>cheaper than private lease.
>that's why it's considered so
> valuble by allotment holders.
>
>
>This band of losers keeps trying
>to make this a constitutional
>issue, by they don't get
>specific as to how.
>what part of going to
>jail for arson is unconstitutional?
> what part of a
>federal refuge that's been in
>service for over a
>century is unconstitutional ?
>what part of restrictions or
>a fee on a grazing
>allotment is unconstitutional ?
>what part of the feds
>owning and managing land is
>unconstitutional?
>
>Anyone who supports these clowns should
>first define what EXACTLY it
>is they support them for.
> because all I can
>find they stand for is
>a search for why they're
>losers and who they can
>find to blame for their
>failures.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Stay Thirsty My Friends

There some Jealousy there dude?

I'll Bet Cliven has a lower Overhead than you!:D








"I'm Living & Dieing with the Choices
I've made!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=N8i5NLyXZdc
 
I've been lookin but can't seem to find it. More of a curiosity than anything. What was the size of the original refuge/bird sanctuary back in 1908?
 
Dude prove to us wing nuts that the 7 mills were shuttered because they cut 10 times more yellow pine than how fast it was growing.

Fact about GOVT overreach and their hell bent over zealous employees.

So Im out of town from Dec 21st thru Jan 3rd. On the 22nd my office receives a statement from the USDA Forest Service that we need to pay a use permit fee by Jan first. The bill was sent on Dec 17th via pony express. Today I called them and explained the situation to them. Ie sent on the17th, received on the 22nd and due 10 days later. WTF? After much discussion I was told that I would probably have my use permit revoked due to being late. As u can imagine, I'm boiling mad. In the past 20 years we received the statement in late Nov. White Lives Matter
 
As much as it pains me to say 440 is spot on. Couldn't agree with him more....on this issue. The Bundy boys are complete idiots and need to be dealt with soon before innocent people get hurt.
 
The sheriff asked them once again to leave the community wants them gone.

The Hammonds are having friends assure the community they have no part in this and want no help from the group.

What more is there to say? they're out of line and breaking the law.








Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
I saw it too but can't remember where.Had whole story of all the original Indian fighters(thieves) to homesteaders, squatters,etc from post L&C & Oregon Territory as the Gov. tried to bring some control over the land. The Refuge had to do with the base water jointly used by surrounding ranches.


I'm curious,anyone know the going rate for public range leases? NM, BLM or FS?

I get $10 per head per month on my measily fenced 140ac with tons of water to run cattle from a rancher buddy.Going rate for good feed & water in Catron county NM he says.It's what I've heard from others. Run half dozen head or so every other year.Carrying capacity on my land.

I'm going to try and get an honest answer on going rate on FS & BLM in Catron county, NM. I can't get solid info from the Fed's I'm told.It's a privacy deal or some sheite.CYA for ranchers & Gov. Usual gubberment gobblety goop Animal use days and riparian areas and horses are different than cattle or sheep. How much per head (1 cow/heifer/steer/queer) per acre per month.How many can you run per acre?
You know,basic english lease rent cost breakdown.

Just wondering how Bundy with 160 ac(I believe) deeded lands to his name,is into US for $?.How many acres does he lease and what does he never pay? A million in back fees? Is that right? How long has this leech been not paying?
 
How long would armed men be allowed to take over a different Federal building, say a Post Office or Federal Courthouse?

And if your response is that its different because the NWR isn't used as much, then I have another question for you...

At what point is a Federal building worth keeping out of the hands of armed men?... 5 people per day?... 20 people per day?

These guys should have all utilities and access shut off and be starved/frozen out of there. And as soon as they make their way back out to the checkpoint, they should be arrested for conspiracy, firearms in a federal building, trespassing, and any other pertinent charges.

Just my .02.

Grizzly
 
Most of the info was pulled off the Hammond family blog spot bobcat. Figure that's why grizzly poo pooed it.
 
>How long would armed men be
>allowed to take over a
>different Federal building, say a
>Post Office or Federal Courthouse?
>
>
>And if your response is that
>its different because the NWR
>isn't used as much, then
>I have another question for
>you...
>
>At what point is a Federal
>building worth keeping out of
>the hands of armed men?...
>5 people per day?... 20
>people per day?
>
>These guys should have all utilities
>and access shut off and
>be starved/frozen out of there.
>And as soon as they
>make their way back out
>to the checkpoint, they should
>be arrested for conspiracy, firearms
>in a federal building, trespassing,
>and any other pertinent charges.
>
>
>Just my .02.
>
>Grizzly

So you're calling for a double standard as little was done to the ows crowds,the Ferguson looters and rioters, the Baltimore looters and rioters, or that group of union thugs that recently occupied the Wisconsin state capital causing millions of dollars in damages cause they didn't like the governor doin what he said he was gonna do and kickin there butts in 3 straight elections in 4 yrs! Not sayin I disagree with you grizzly but this administration has set a precedent. How you bettin?
 
>Most of the info was pulled
>off the Hammond family blog
>spot bobcat. Figure that's why
>grizzly poo pooed it.

I told you who wrote that article. You asked me to provide the link. In post 15, I did.

I also said to consider the source of information before you believe it. And that I chose to believe the jury over Mike Adams, the gentleman that wrote that piece. (You can research him if you'd like, but I don't care to do it for you).

I also said I would respect your opinion whatever it was and hopefully you'll do me the same courtesy.

Grizzly
 
>So you're calling for a double
>standard as little was done
>to the ows crowds,the Ferguson
>looters and rioters, the Baltimore
>looters and rioters, or that
>group of union thugs that
>recently occupied the Wisconsin state
>capital causing millions of dollars
>in damages cause they didn't
>like the governor doin what
>he said he was gonna
>do and kickin there butts
>in 3 straight elections in
>4 yrs! Not sayin I
>disagree with you grizzly but
>this administration has set a
>precedent. How you bettin?

I would only be calling for a double standard if I thought those other guys should've gotten off. I have never whispered, written, implied, stated, or used America Sign Language to say the people you list above should not be charged to the fullest extent of the law.

In fact, if you think those in your example should be charged, but not the Bundy Gang... then you're calling for the double standard.

I say charge them all. As to the administration... Obama aligns politically with the examples you mentioned. He has shown he is foremost a political figurehead and will not prosecute those with whom he agrees. However, the failure to complete the Bundy raid is a different story, and I believe was because Harry Reid did not want another Waco in his state.

The Bundy's were really committing an act of omission (failing to pay grazing permit fees). What they are doing now is an act of commission by actively seizing a Federal building (potentially committing various misdemeanor and felonious acts).

I thought they should have got the Bundy clan in Nevada and I think they should get them again in Oregon. I also think they should get the Baltimore looters, OWS losers, Wisconsin union protesters, et al.

Definitely no double standard here. How about on your side of the fence? Do you want them all charged fully, including Bundy, or only those with whom you disagree?

Grizzly
 
>>So you're calling for a double
>>standard as little was done
>>to the ows crowds,the Ferguson
>>looters and rioters, the Baltimore
>>looters and rioters, or that
>>group of union thugs that
>>recently occupied the Wisconsin state
>>capital causing millions of dollars
>>in damages cause they didn't
>>like the governor doin what
>>he said he was gonna
>>do and kickin there butts
>>in 3 straight elections in
>>4 yrs! Not sayin I
>>disagree with you grizzly but
>>this administration has set a
>>precedent. How you bettin?
>
>I would only be calling for
>a double standard if I
>thought those other guys should've
>gotten off. I have never
>whispered, written, implied, stated, or
>used America Sign Language to
>say the people you list
>above should not be charged
>to the fullest extent of
>the law.
>
>In fact, if you think those
>in your example should be
>charged, but not the Bundy
>Gang... then you're calling for
>the double standard.
>
>I say charge them all. As
>to the administration... Obama aligns
>politically with the examples you
>mentioned. He has shown he
>is foremost a political figurehead
>and will not prosecute those
>with whom he agrees. However,
>the failure to complete the
>Bundy raid is a different
>story, and I believe was
>because Harry Reid did not
>want another Waco in his
>state.
>
>The Bundy's were really committing an
>act of omission (failing to
>pay grazing permit fees). What
>they are doing now is
>an act of commission by
>actively seizing a Federal building
>(potentially committing various misdemeanor and
>felonious acts).
>
>I thought they should have got
>the Bundy clan in Nevada
>and I think they should
>get them again in Oregon.
>I also think they should
>get the Baltimore looters, OWS
>losers, Wisconsin union protesters, et
>al.
>
>Definitely no double standard here. How
>about on your side of
>the fence? Do you want
>them all charged fully, including
>Bundy, or only those with
>whom you disagree?
>
>Grizzly

Hey Grizzly?

There were a couple Bundy's at the Illegal ATV Ride!

None of the Law Officials bothered them/F'D with them!

There were a few Singled out!

But none of them were Bundy's!

WTF?

SPLAIN It!








"I'm Living & Dieing with the Choices
I've made!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=N8i5NLyXZdc
 
One if their fires cost taxpayers 1.3 million dollars to fight. damage enough?


Yes $1.69. do you know what an AUM is? I doubt it. so a $1.69 gets you a cow/calf pair for a month. do you have any idea how cheap that is? put it this way, if you owned the land that is cheaper than the property taxes. it comes out to about a dime an acre per month.

Do you know what private costs? I haven't heard of anything less than $8 dryland and irrigated runs 20-25.

So this is a very very good deal for the allotment holder. you're actually subsidizing them so consider that when you're crying those big tears.

Don't get me wrong I support public grazing, I used to do it myself. but considering what it cost me to run out on my own land my sympathy for those who can't follow the rules and the law is very limited at best.












Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
As long as there are no hostages, or innocent people at risk time is on LE side. No hurry just wait them out. Even more so when they are in a far and away place.

I bet Obama allows the fbi to use their armored vehicles and military equipment in this situation, but when it's used against his thugs it's a no no.
 
Figure how much Bundy has made off those cattle if he owes over 1 million in fees. I don't know how many months he runs cattle in that arid country? Maybe all year. A little over 20 dollars a year for a cow calf pair. Do the math
 
As I understand it he turns out all year. besides not paying this mismanagement is part of the problem.

So we have a family of deadbeats supporting arsonists and poachers. sounds about right.

The price on cattle is off quite a bit a the moment but still decent. guys running on the feds have been making a killing . the truth is most wouldn't buy the BLM land they run on if it was for sale at market price. it's a better buy to lease it. but of course the Bundy's don't want to buy it they just want to take it.












Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
heh heh...yup.
And a section,640 ac, is about=to 1000 acres of flat land due to the contours in the Gila,give or take. Same with most of Catron county,terrain wise.

I know it is some what similar,very rural and remote, but flatter around there in OR. I have not been thru there in many years,but have friends in area.Baker,Bend,middle of no where.

Looking at the similarities and demeanor of the locals vs true nut jobs.
Catron county is 7500 sq mi & 2800 folks here. Reserve the county seat is a village at best,altho an ancient one. Since 1700's?

That OR county (forgot)is 9k sq mi and 10k people. They actually have 2 sort of cities.

Stoney is right in that the sheriff got tired of fighting DC and Catron being last in line in NM & for being stubborn.There has been dubiuos, shall we say,holders of the office here recorded. One,rumored for years,that there are 13 unsolved murders linked too.
Funny,the last few including the new one are pretty even keeled people. And we have just started to break into the last century....finally.
Heah,I have always said I was born 200 yrs too late,now I live it.Thanks Stoney!
Glad I have a better feeling for my neighbors and the attitude I see from them over all. I feel safer already.
Believe me,we must run out of tin foil at the country store at times when I hear some theory or FACT as they call it. LOL
 
>>So you're calling for a double
>>standard as little was done
>>to the ows crowds,the Ferguson
>>looters and rioters, the Baltimore
>>looters and rioters, or that
>>group of union thugs that
>>recently occupied the Wisconsin state
>>capital causing millions of dollars
>>in damages cause they didn't
>>like the governor doin what
>>he said he was gonna
>>do and kickin there butts
>>in 3 straight elections in
>>4 yrs! Not sayin I
>>disagree with you grizzly but
>>this administration has set a
>>precedent. How you bettin?
>
>I would only be calling for
>a double standard if I
>thought those other guys should've
>gotten off. I have never
>whispered, written, implied, stated, or
>used America Sign Language to
>say the people you list
>above should not be charged
>to the fullest extent of
>the law.
>
>In fact, if you think those
>in your example should be
>charged, but not the Bundy
>Gang... then you're calling for
>the double standard.
>
>I say charge them all. As
>to the administration... Obama aligns
>politically with the examples you
>mentioned. He has shown he
>is foremost a political figurehead
>and will not prosecute those
>with whom he agrees. However,
>the failure to complete the
>Bundy raid is a different
>story, and I believe was
>because Harry Reid did not
>want another Waco in his
>state.
>
>The Bundy's were really committing an
>act of omission (failing to
>pay grazing permit fees). What
>they are doing now is
>an act of commission by
>actively seizing a Federal building
>(potentially committing various misdemeanor and
>felonious acts).
>
>I thought they should have got
>the Bundy clan in Nevada
>and I think they should
>get them again in Oregon.
>I also think they should
>get the Baltimore looters, OWS
>losers, Wisconsin union protesters, et
>al.
>
>Definitely no double standard here. How
>about on your side of
>the fence? Do you want
>them all charged fully, including
>Bundy, or only those with
>whom you disagree?
>
>Grizzly


We agree grizz, they all should be charged, but none of those mentioned prior to the Bundys were, setting a dangerous precedent. How do they then charge the bundys for doing something similar without all the vandalism and looting? It's a f'story no question. Looked up mike Adams, he's a piece a work alright. I'm assuming the Hammond family blog has been takein down as I can't find it. That is of course if it existed at all. Like I said who knows what to believe anymore.
 
>
>One if their fires cost taxpayers
>1.3 million dollars to fight.
> damage enough?
>
>
>Yes $1.69. do you know
>what an AUM is?
>I doubt it. so
>a $1.69 gets you
>a cow/calf pair for a
>month. do you have
>any idea how cheap that
>is? put it this
>way, if you owned the
>land that is cheaper than
>the property taxes. it
>comes out to about a
>dime an acre per month.
>
>
>Do you know what private costs?
> I haven't heard of
>anything less than $8 dryland
>and irrigated runs 20-25.
>
>So this is a very very
>good deal for the allotment
>holder. you're actually subsidizing
>them so consider that when
>you're crying those big tears.
>
>
>Don't get me wrong I support
>public grazing, I used to
>do it myself. but considering
>what it cost me to
>run out on my own
>land my sympathy for those
>who can't follow the rules
>and the law is very
>limited at best.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Stay Thirsty My Friends

Yer a funny one lennie. Read post 21
 
Hey DW, it sounds like you and I are on the same page on post 126.

It's been nice talkin' to ya. I always enjoy a respectful banter. Have a good one.

Grizzly
 
It'd be Interesting to know the 100% Truth on this whole Deal!

I Don't Blame people for Standing up against Our Government!

In Fact I like to know there are people out there with enough GUTS to do it!

They just need to do it in a Legal way!

Taking over that Refuge Building ain't gonna Help Bundy's & their Buddies!

Anybody know how much Food is in the Building?:D

Will they have to shoot/Poach animals for Food?:D

Maybe eat an out of season Quacker Dinner?:D

Is there a Wood Burning Stove in the Building?

Did they Break in?

Or walk through an Un-Locked Door?

Bundy's seem to do as they Please!

They've been doing it forever!

But I Think this Deal might play out different!

Has dude seen the Apache's Fly by his place yet?:D:D:D








"I'm Living & Dieing with the Choices
I've made!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=N8i5NLyXZdc
 
Animal Units per Month?
Gubberment abbrev's /acronyms alone will drive you nuts,so maybe this is Bundies twinkie defence.
 
I wonder why the two Bitches that worked for the V.A. that were caught stealing will not be prosecuted,just aint fair.
 
Don't think them boys packed a lantern and a chainsaw? This'll take a month or better without an armed confrontation should they want it to.
 
The only thing around there that would make a decent fire is lumber. maybe there's a stack of railroad ties or something. if they start destroying public property that changes the game.

They're also talking of cutting off their access to town, no more beer and moon pies.

And if access is cut off that means no more media fun days.

Life on the funny farm is about to get very western. we have more snow coming all week.










Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
How will they charge their cellphones to post their propaganda videos about being bullied in high school?

Given the location it should be fairly easy to just let them stew for a couple of months of cold. Cannot see any reason at all for a big Waco style shoot out.

Nemont
 
I don't think it will take very long at all. these aren't tough people and they don't even know what their cause is.

once it's not fun anymore it's game over.









Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
I did notice that some of the trucks had generators in them. Also, odds are that Ovimit will pardon them anyway. LOL
 
I'm sure they have generators. and there might be some public owned gas they can steal for a while. but a little 110 isn't going to be the same as what they have now.

If they start poaching deer that's a crime too. grounds for arrest.
















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
To quote you Tog "who gives a FF?) After 140 posts and several days of occupation it's time for some real action by all the participants. I get more fired up by watching the Saudi/Iran fiasco.
 
Maybe it matter more to me because it's on my home turf.

It is time for action and it looks like it's beginning. but the feds need to be careful they don't do something that turns these culls into martyrs . we've seen what that does for similar people in the middle east.












Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Hank,

Go to the Range Improvement Task Force at NMSU and they have several publications detailing how public lands grazers with all of their added expenses, gov't red tape, hunters shooting holes in their water tanks, wood cutters making roads all over, ATV'er making new roads every day and on an on. Pretty quick, and the experts have actually proved that, your $10.00 per month per head is basically about what it costs to run livestock on the public domain.

I have been involved in one way or another in public land grazing myself (1973)for many years and have family members that still are and can attest it is not all wine and roses trying to run on public lands. You jump on the old tired band wagon of subsidized public lands ranchers.

You know where I live Hank, Come down and I will give you a tour of the public lands ranches here and then you try to prove me wrong.

I was President of the Gila National Forest Permittee's Grazing Assn. for many years and know most of the ranchers in the whole Gila Region. I know for a fact that there used to be 90+ permittees on the Gila National Forest with 265,000 AUM"s of grazing and now those numbers are way down and I am guessing that maybe only 170,000 AUM's of grazing left and many less permittees.

Hank things sometimes look rosy on the outside but until you really look inside and or perhaps walk in my shoes for a while I think you might start getting a better picture of the real world out here.

I have been taking a lot of flak here on the thread which is fine, but I do not condone the actions of the armed takeover and do not condone the actions of the Bundys, or many of the actions the Hammonds and the Bundys and all of the other oppressed ranchers over the years. The answer to most of them was they were backed into a corner and took matters into their own hands which wasn't smart or the way to go. Most public lands ranchers are law abiding and do it the right way but never the less I have seen Government oppression and environmental backlash against many public lands ranchers for the last 40 years.

I have been and still am vitally involved in public lands matters and call me crazy if you want but we continue the fight. Right now the biggest fight we are facing is the Mexican Gray Wolf Expansion program trying to be implemented by the USFWS. This has very serious consequences not only for public lands but private lands. It is government sponsored terrorism, period. Hunters, wake up! Quit blaming all of those supposed ole nasty ranchers for all of your trumped up wrongs.

Some one above posted that ranchers get paid for wolf losses. That is a big crock as most livestock wolf kills have never been paid for. They are trying to come up with solutions but none of the compensation programs have or are working worth a darn. This brings up another point that public lands ranchers run on so much country it is some times weeks or days before they discover their losses and by then it it too late to have it confirmed a wolf kill. A pack of wolves will kill a baby calf and leave nothing but a grease spot. Hank you can probably see most of the lease cattle you run on a daily basis. Not so on some the huge expanses of land many of my neighbors run on.

The first and second generation ranchers were basically left alone to do what they did best. The last 40 years have brought about many changes and most apparent is the huge radical environmental movement and how it in conjunction with the Federal Government have made things much tougher in the public lands ranching world today, with no end in sight.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-16 AT 11:18AM (MST)[p]
Explain why allotment holders are exempt from rules and regulations ? whatever they may be.


You seem to think we should go back to 1880 and nothing should ever change on the range. that is both impractical and impossible. everything changes.

We agree on very little, but I do agree on the wolves. if they do have a place in 2015 it's at a very minimal level.












Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-16 AT 11:37AM (MST)[p]

>Go to the Range Improvement Task
>Force at NMSU and they
>have several publications detailing how
>public lands grazers with all
>of their added expenses, gov't
>red tape, hunters shooting holes
>in their water tanks, wood
>cutters making roads all over,
>ATV'er making new roads every
>day and on an on.
>Pretty quick, and the experts
>have actually proved that, your
>$10.00 per month per head
>is basically about what it
>costs to run livestock on
>the public domain.

Even at $10 an AUM it would be below market. Also if it is difficult to graze on public lands why do people continue to fight for the chance to do it?

>I have been involved in one
>way or another in public
>land grazing myself (1973)for many
>years and have family members
>that still are and can
>attest it is not all
>wine and roses trying to
>run on public lands. You
>jump on the old tired
>band wagon of subsidized public
>lands ranchers.

I don't think anyone here said ranching was all wine and Roses. I think what was said is that thieves like the Bundy's shouldn't be allowed to run for free. They don't even hold a valid grazing permit, yet you consider they "patriots" for abusing land and living off the taxpayers.


>You know where I live Hank,
>Come down and I will
>give you a tour of
>the public lands ranches here
>and then you try to
>prove me wrong.

Tell you what come up to the inlaws ranch and you tell me what you see.


>I was President of the Gila
>National Forest Permittee's Grazing Assn.
>for many years and know
>most of the ranchers in
>the whole Gila Region. I
>know for a fact that
>there used to be 90+
>permittees on the Gila National
>Forest with 265,000 AUM"s of
>grazing and now those numbers
>are way down and I
>am guessing that maybe only
>170,000 AUM's of grazing left
>and many less permittees.

Go look at the same NMSU RITF you quoted and the data on AUM's in GILA. They have been going down since the spike back in 1913 or so.

>Hank things sometimes look rosy on
>the outside but until you
>really look inside and or
>perhaps walk in my shoes
>for a while I think
>you might start getting a
>better picture of the real
>world out here.

Name a business in America that has not been impacted by regulations? Even entire industry's have been put out of business by regulations. What makes ranchers so special as to believe they immune from changing land uses and changing times?


>I have been taking a lot
>of flak here on the
>thread which is fine, but
>I do not condone the
>actions of the armed takeover
>and do not condone the
>actions of the Bundys, or
>many of the actions the
>Hammonds and the Bundys and
>all of the other oppressed
>ranchers over the years. The
>answer to most of them
>was they were backed into
>a corner and took matters
>into their own hands which
>wasn't smart or the way
>to go. Most public lands
>ranchers are law abiding and
>do it the right way
>but never the less I
>have seen Government oppression and
>environmental backlash against many public
>lands ranchers for the last
>40 years.

You called both those family's great Americans and Patriots. So how exactly are you not supporting them?

stoney (244 posts)
Jan-04-16, 10:24 AM (MST)
69. "RE: BUNDY'S SON IN OREGON!!! (LOOK!)"

Until you have walked in the shoes of these great Americans, the Hammonds, the Bundys, the Laneys, the Martinez's, the Lee's and on and on, to see how big Government oppression, whether it be by misuse of the Endangered Species Act, liberal judges, sheer force or whatever, you shouldn't be so quick to judge these patriots.

>I have been and still am
>vitally involved in public lands
>matters and call me crazy
>if you want but we
>continue the fight. Right now
>the biggest fight we are
>facing is the Mexican Gray
>Wolf Expansion program trying to
>be implemented by the USFWS.
>This has very serious consequences
>not only for public lands
>but private lands. It is
>government sponsored terrorism, period. Hunters,
>wake up! Quit blaming all
>of those supposed ole nasty
>ranchers for all of your
>trumped up wrongs.

We hunt wolves in Montana and Idaho. Wolves have changed the game a lot but go look at all the hunting licenses sold in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho since the wolf introduction. I didn't support it and in fact opposed it to the bitter end. yet the predicted end of all hunting has never came to be either.

>Some one above posted that ranchers
>get paid for wolf losses.
>That is a big crock
>as most livestock wolf kills
>have never been paid for.
>They are trying to come
>up with solutions but none
>of the compensation programs have
>or are working worth a
>darn. This brings up another
>point that public lands ranchers
>run on so much country
>it is some times weeks
>or days before they discover
>their losses and by then
>it it too late to
>have it confirmed a wolf
>kill. A pack of wolves
>will kill a baby calf
>and leave nothing but a
>grease spot. Hank you can
>probably see most of the
>lease cattle you run on
>a daily basis. Not so
>on some the huge expanses
>of land many of my
>neighbors run on.

>The first and second generation ranchers
>were basically left alone to
>do what they did best.
>The last 40 years have
>brought about many changes and
>most apparent is the huge
>radical environmental movement and how
>it in conjunction with the
>Federal Government have made things
>much tougher in the public
>lands ranching world today, with
>no end in sight.

Have you ever stopped to think how much has changed around you in the last 40 years? Or you still think you can live in Mayberry and nothing should ever change?

Why are there so many successful ranch operations around the west, who still graze on public lands, and they still pay their bills and are great steward of land but these clowns can't make it? There is a reason and it usually has more to do with their own stupidity and bravado than it does have to do with the Government.



Nemont
 
Stoney,

So I decided to look into the Laney family debacle.

The "ranch" consisted of a base property of 115 acres?

-Originally, the Laney property was just 115 acres surrounded by around 144,000 acres of public lands for which Mr. Laney paid grazing rights. But after a ?study? by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided that the lands could not sustain his 1,188 head of cattle, the Forest Service reduced his cattle herd to a meager 300 head.

How exactly did the Laney's ever comply with the base property requirements in the Taylor Grazing Act?

Section 15 of the Act

Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act concerns issuing grazing leases on public lands outside the original grazing district boundaries. It states that "The Secretary of the Interior is further authorized, in his discretion, where vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved lands of the public domain are so situated . . . . to lease any such lands for grazing purposes, upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe . . . ."

Base Property Requirements: As described under "Section 3" above, base property is land, owned or controlled by a BLM permittee or lessee, which may serve as a base for a livestock operation. The land must have the capability to produce crops or forage that can be used to support the livestock authorized for a specified period of time. The base property supporting a section 15 grazing lease must adjoin the leased public lands unless no applicant owns adjoining lands. In most cases, the base property for a section 15 lease adjoins, surrounds, or is intermingled with the leased public lands.


How long would 115 acres produce crop or forage for 1,188 head of cattle? Or even 300 head?

Nemont
 
Tog,

Much of the west is federal managed grazing lands. this is to harvest a natural resource and turn into an affordable food supply that you enjoy everyday. Do realize that a very significant percentage of cattle going into the feedlots come off of public land.

All of this aside, livestock grazing is by far the largest gross domestic product in most rural economies in the west and the amount of tax dollars generated by these ranches keep our counties in business. Logging revenues are mostly gone from public lands in most of these rural economies and now hunting and outfitting is the second largest driver's in our local economies.

I saw this 30 years ago and got out of running cattle on the public land and into outfitting on the public domain. This move has been a good one for myself and family as I see many of my public lands rancher neighbors struggling. Cattle prices the last couple of years has finally healed them up a little bit but now the price is dropping pretty fast.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-16 AT 12:46PM (MST)[p]Thanks for link Stoney.
I am not anti-grazing or logging or mining or much of anything to do with sustainable use and utilization of public lands.
Just not full rape and pillage and move on, anymore than I am close it off to all but the elite and bunnies.
There has to be a balance.

As to the wolves, I agree with you and they should not have been introduced in the first place ,THEY WERE NOT THE NATIVE INDIGINOUS SPIECES!!!
They are mexican half breeds and recovery dogs at bestIMHO.
And there should be controls.
But,,,,,Now they are here and we have to monitor the situation and see what NMG&F decides to do. AZ has already said they will enforce a control plan if FW does not.

I too have been around ranching and ranchers my whole 60 yrs.
I do have some Idea of what is involved with dealing with the Forest Circus.
I was on board of National Forest Homeowners Ass.
Rep.Bill Thomas had access to my place and we talked land issues from all parties on my deck. Packers & grazers too.
I saw the FS wanting my cabin and sold out.

Most everyone I know is just getting by in Catron county & NM in general.
Ranchers,builders,resort folks,even the artists...lol.
I get my lumber from the Reserve Mill.sustainable recovery lumber.And I do agree there needs to be a streamlined proccess for just such items of importance that the FOE,WEG.SC cannot just put a stop to with a call from some lawyer. And frivolous and damaging stalling tactics should be dealt with and lost funds recovered.

But I also believe in Wilderness and non-OHV areas. Same with ADA areas.
I also wish I could dry farm and rely on rain like before the 60's. My place was a homestead and there are signs of a different time everywhere I go on it.
But so do cattlemen I know.
Most ranchers I know are running half what they did 10 yrs ago.
And yes the cost of a well and maintaining one & fences is sky high. I have them.
I also did my research and bought great water land in NM. I have 2 outstanding wells,one for me and one for wildlife & occational cow......
...and I pay my bills.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-05-16 AT 12:41PM (MST)[p]>Tog,
>
>Much of the west is federal
>managed grazing lands. this is
>to harvest a natural resource
>and turn into an affordable
>food supply that you enjoy
>everyday. Do realize that a
>very significant percentage of cattle
>going into the feedlots come
>off of public land.

Stoney, you call 3% of the total beef production in the U.S. significant? That is the percentage of total slaughtered beef on the rail, that public land grazing provides.

>All of this aside, livestock grazing
>is by far the largest
>gross domestic product in most
>rural economies in the west
>and the amount of tax
>dollars generated by these ranches
>keep our counties in business.
>Logging revenues are mostly gone
>from public lands in most
>of these rural economies and
>now hunting and outfitting is
>the second largest driver's in
>our local economies.




>I saw this 30 years ago
>and got out of running
>cattle on the public land
>and into outfitting on the
>public domain. This move has
>been a good one for
>myself and family as I
>see many of my public
>lands rancher neighbors struggling. Cattle
>prices the last couple of
>years has finally healed them
>up a little bit but
>now the price is dropping
>pretty fast.


Why couldn't the Bundy's or the Hammond's adapt to changing economic and political realities? Why are ranchers immune from changing policies from DC?

My own business has been impacted dramatically by a law being passed in DC, yet I figured it out.

I am not anti rancher or even anti public lands grazing. We need ranchers in our local communities, we need public lands grazing as it provides many benefits. What we don't need in rural America is people who believe they own public land and can do as they please with it because they graze their cattle on it.

Nemont
 
Nemont,

This is yearlong grazing country and the base property requirements are different here on National Forest Land. It is not BLM and may be different on the USFS lands in the northern states where the grazing allotments are only seasonal or summer time grazing programs.

All the USFS requires here in the Gila is 40 acres, for base property. It is not to support the cattle during different seasons or whatever. It is just a property requirement to legitimize the allotment holder and doesn't even have to be connected to the grazing allotment.

During severe droughts and extreme circumstances, if the USFS make the permittee take cattle off temporarily, the rancher either has to sell the cattle or lease some private ground.

The Laney's deal turned south when a District Ranger whom appeared to be in bed with the radical environmentalists, or for whatever reason, reneged on the agreement worked out between the FS and the Laneys which included a lot of fencing and water developments to keep the cattle out of the river and creek bottoms. The Laneys had all of this in writing and had agreed to do the work. The FS halted the deal and put the screws to them. The female district ranger made some bad decisions which eventually forced the whole fiasco to blow up in everybody's faces. The only winner in this whole deal was the radical environmentalists as they finally now have effectively stopped all cattle grazing in the Gila and Aldo Leopold Wilderness which encompass over 700,000 acres. The family's home ranch near Luna, NM also had the grazing rights stripped from it with much of that prime grazing country not be utilized and or producing revenue for not only the old folks but also affects our county tax base with fewer livestock numbers. and dollars from the sale of the lost livestock not coming back into our local economy. Many supposed benign government actions cause huge ripples in our custom, culture and economic well being.
 
I know the part of the sagebrush rebellion, land sell transfer movement from Nevada. It's all about getting the land for more cattle, they have used their power to suppress elk herds to nothing, and in many places Elk free zones. Not because the elk hurt things, but because they eat forage that the ranchers want for more cattle.
430 thousand cattle vs 13 thousand elk, in a state composed of mostly public land.

So I have no sympathy when listening to stoney, none at all. I know Demar Dahl and the good old boys, so does stoney, don't kid yourself,
 
Stoney,

I know you are a good hearted guy who believes what you believe but you should spend some time looking at what happens when ranchers claim a right that isn't a right.

Conclusion
Plaintiffs do not now hold and have never held a vested private property right to graze cattle on federal public lands.   At the time plaintiffs' predecessors began ranching, grazing on the public domain was a privilege tacitly permitted by the government by an implied license.   This license was revocable at the government's pleasure and conferred no right in plaintiffs or their predecessors to graze a specific allotment of land.
It is not disputed that the Diamond Bar and Laney allotments are located on national forest lands, where grazing is by permit only.   Nor is it contested that plaintiffs grazed cattle on these allotments without a permit.   Therefore, the district court acted properly in enjoining plaintiffs from further unauthorized grazing, in assessing unauthorized use fees, in directing removal of plaintiffs' cattle, and in finding plaintiffs in trespass of federal lands.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1078655.html#sthash.SgC3ru0N.dpu

The 10th Court of appeals is not full of activist judges and their opinions usually are not anything like what comes out the 9th Circuit, such as Montana and Nevada are under.

I am curious if you believe grazing permits are private property rights?

Nemont
 
115 acres, that's funny. we have hobby ranches here too.

At the end of the day the public lands are just that. public. and the BLM and USFS are who we have responsible for them. so if you want to run cattle on thee public lands you follow the rules and you pay your fees.

Why is this so hard to accept and why are we having this discussion? the wild west died 100 years ago now it's just business.











Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Stoney, dont worry about Piper. He has a healthy burning hate for anyone that has more than him, and that is just about everyone.
 
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/fs_grazing_economics.htm


2922pieusbeef.jpg



[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
First of all, approximately 20% of the feeder cattle going into the feedlots originated on public land grazing allotments. The 3% or whatever of total tonnage is misleading.

The Laney lawsuit doesn't even tell half of the story. I agree with you that they should have paid their fees and done thongs right. They had a lot of bad advise.

What is not shown is the negotiations between the Laneys and the Gila National Forest officials whom reneged on their agreement and turned everything upside down.

Public lands grazing allotments are bought and sold daily on the public real estate market and you can bet the IRS darn sure gives them a value as these transactions are taxed to be sure. The IRSA explicitly thinks they have a value, even though their brethren at the Agencies don't want to recongize that.

The public lands rancher has no recognized right in the grazing allotment itself but the ranchers does have a vested right in the improvements he has put in on the public land. This has and is being debated. The USFS is very careful to make sure a rancher has no vested interest in allotment.

The rancher in many instances has water rights on springs and water sources that are used on the grazing allotment. Many a battle with the Feds comes over water conveyances and ditches crossing the public land to irrigate the private lands. A huge share of this was done long before the Agencies took over.

I think in many cases if you dig deep enough you will see the US Gov't with help from the radical environmentalists have railroaded many of our public lands ranchers. I have witnessed it first hand.

The Laneys in NM and the Martinez Brothers in AZ were basically put out of business at the dirty hand of our US Gov't. I live here and witnessed this time after time and know the intimate details that the Feds and the Courts have a way to cover up.

Where these families and the ones in OR and NV screw up is by not paying their grazing fees or staying totally above the law.

I do not condone what the Bundys did or some of the others but I understand what put them in the unlawful positions they found themselves in and how their backs were against the wall. Whether you guys care to recognize this or not matters not to me. What matters to me is how sad I feel for the families of these oppressed individuals. I was in the courthouse in Alamagordo, NM the day Kit Laney was sentenced and thrown in jail. What a dog and pony show. He has overcome this after losing his wife in this deal and now has a new wife and a couple of kids. You will never find a more upstanding and good hearted individual anywhere. His family are pillars in our local area and didn't deserve what the Feds handed out to them. We will always be bitter.

Ammon Bundy really screwed up by calling in his cohorts and sympathizers and told them to bring their guns. This really gives the gun control crowd a big boost and especially when we heard from the POTUS today in his end run motive to take away our guns.
 
Was it mentioned in earlier posts that out of the 139 acres burned than only 1 acre was Fed Land? I got this from a gentleman from Burns that does not support the patriots, but supports the land owners, ????
 
Interesting. I'm trying to wrap my head around where the guide claims that the Hammonds shot into a group of deer and wounded 4 bucks which they did not attempt to track or follow. I say BS. There should have been either some does wounded or at the very least some mortality in the carnage. Do you believe it?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-16 AT 09:31AM (MST)[p]Why is that hard to believe? that time of year the bucks are in bachelor groups.

There was more than one fire . and lets not forget a jury in Pendleton convicted these people. if our system failed these ranchers maybe you should join Al Sharpton. he says the same thing, the system failed millions of innocent gang bangers too.

Lets get real here.


















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>Interesting. I'm trying to wrap my
>head around where the guide
>claims that the Hammonds shot
>into a group of deer
>and wounded 4 bucks which
>they did not attempt to
>track or follow. I say
>BS. There should have been
>either some does wounded or
>at the very least some
>mortality in the carnage. Do
>you believe it?


Do you believe that only 1 acre of public land was burnt?
 
I noticed many posts ago comments that the govt must have wanted the ranch as they set up the right of first refusal on the sale of the ranch. That was done since the Hammonds owed 400k to govt and to prevent them from selling the ranch to a relative for below market value. Once the 400 k paid govt dropped that agreement. It was done to protect an asset if Hammonds refused to pay the 400k. Very typical as it acts as a lien.
 
That's a good point. Do you have a link or source to that?

[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
Isaac Anderson Article 1, section 8, clause 17 brings no mention of the ability for the federal government to own land in sovereign states. That is the power allowed the federal government to own only property to carry out its limited enumerated powers. Those powers do not include federal land management, parks or monuments. Because congress passed another unconstitutional act does not make the action right. We are so past freedom, it's sick. And we all have our little item that we are willing to look past the overreach of the federal government because it personally benefits us. We have created the corpratist control, environmental tyranny, and federal tyranny that has created the civil unrest today. We are no longer a nation of laws. The reason we have black lives matters, the occupiers, or the bundy's is because there is no law and no sense of control by the people. The weight of power has shifted from the states to the feds. And I don't know about you guys, but it creates a sense of helplessness to change anything. A gunzel out of a big city community college in new York with a degree in political science should not be in charge of ranch land in Wyoming or the school curriculum for my kid in az.
 
I'm think of suing Annon Bundy, seriously. Even though I live in Idaho I hold hunting licenses in Oregon too. I like hunting the Buena Vista unit which my tax dollars pay for and he is currently preventing me from doing that.
 
Oops. Sorry I typed 1 Instead of 100 acres. Not sure if it was only 39 acres of Govt land or 39 acres of private. As far as the herd f deer, usually by Sept 30th the bucks are out of the velvet and commingling with others. Not 100% if that herd is a resident herd or migratory herd out of the Steens, but if migratory they could be in the transition. Probably resident.
 
Those deer come down in the winter, but they don't travel far. there's nowhere to go. even the creeks just run out into the flat and soak in. there are no drainages out of most of this country on all sides of the Steens.


Boobcat I don't think they're going to be there long enough to need generators. rumors are they're looking for a way out. they had a meeting in Burns last night and the locals told them to GTFO of town. they can't even get support from the republicans or FOX for what they're doing.














Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
NVBighorn,

Research Dr. Thomas Powers and you will find that he is tied in tight with the radical environmental organization Wild Earth Guardians. Just look at his papers and research and see how skewed it is and how he twists everything to make public lands grazing and many other public lands use seem trivial.

For some very well done research into this subject and all done by PHD's go to: Range Improvement Task Force NMSU, Publications and bring up Report #32 Titled "The Importance of Public Lands to Livestock Production in the US.

A significant number of cattle spend at least part of their life on public lands on USFS in the 11 western states. An estimated 4,773,124 head of beef cattle were produced in the ll western states, I believe it was early 1990's, on ranches with public lands grazing. This was 69% of the cattle produced in the 11 western United States 15% of the total 31 million head in the whole US.

The economic significance and portion of domestic product income is a huge portion of the revenues, especially in the rural counties with no to little other economic base.

Dr. Powers numbers are claiming only 17,000+ jobs connected to public lands grazing is really out of touch. Hell there are that many gov't employees regulating PL grazing let alone the huge amount of employment garnered on the public lands ranches.

Public lands ranches vary from total dependency to less than 5% use of public lands. Most fall somewhere in between. The professor's at NMSU use different classifications in their research with the minimum 5% in the low category. Many of the public lands ranches especially BLM lands, are checker boarded and not in big blocks like perhaps Nevada.

Keep in mind many of statistics Powers used are misleading such as total beef supplies and such include private landowners in the eastern 2/3 of the nation with very small herds of 1-10 head. His total forage consumed buy livestock not only includes all of this private land but feedlots and dairies.

The important thing here is that public lands grazing plays a vital and very important part of the 11 western states' economies and well beings. No amount of propaganda Thomas Powers, The Wild Earth Guardians, Western Watersheds, and the Biological Diversity Center put out, it is simply propaganda to rid the western states of public lands grazing. These folks are our real enemies, not the hard working public lands ranchers. The racial environmentalist folks don't want hunters out there on "their" playground. Just remember that fact. Its not about the cows or the owls sor the wolf. It is about how the public domain is managed into the future, and who manages it. The consumptive users are losing the battle and with the help of some of our very own brethren hunters here on MM. Remember you are included in Dr. Power's ideal of a cleansed public land.
 
Sheriff Ward and the community say they're done talking to the carpetbaggers.

Most local want the feds to take out the trash. that's what the people want. give it to them.












Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>
>
>
>Nope, but it's getting closer.
>more carpetbagger are showing up.
> if Ward had his
>way he's take them out
> I'm
>sure. he's had
>enough of their chit .
>
>
>Local news from Bend.
>
>
>http://www.ktvz.com/news/harney-county-supporters-pay-visit-to-occupied-refuge/37308444
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Stay Thirsty My Friends


let me predict the outcome if it ends loud mouth dudes way...civil war, they will come out of the wood work it wold blow ur minds...
 
Aw crap.

I spend a week out in the sticks in Arizona hunting javelina, and I come back to seeing that moocher Bundy and his crotchfruit back in the news?

It was bad enough when I was living in Vegas and Cliven Bundy started his little troubles, all the AR-toting anarchists and Oathkeepers wouldn't shut the hell up that "IT'S COMING".

Can the entire Bundy family have some kind of accident and we can be done with this?
 
Eleven,

Read the link in my post above and try to get a grip on what has taken place and try to glean perhaps a clue as to what is really going on with not only the Bundys but the Hammonds and much of rural America. The West lost so much during the Clinton/Babbitt reign and it hasn't slowed down since. If you just take the time to find out what has taken place with these families over the last several decades, you might have a change of heart. You are one bitter person. You seem to be just another sheeple amongst the every growing masses of the dumb downed.
 
Thanks for the link Stoney.
But the info is about half right,like the map.
Bit of an exaggeration.
I didn't know I was on NF land.

For a guy that makes his living off public lands ,I wonder....
 
It's not even half true. it's mouthbreather propaganda.


We have a deadbeat who won't pay his bills and a couple poaching arsonists in jail. that is what started this whole debate if you wish to call it that. anyone with an IQ over room temperature should ask themselves if this is what stirred up the dirt just how serious is it all? as always there are a few legitimate cases which will go to court and be settled . 99.9% the rest is just whiney narcissistic losers crying the blues.


















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
It's an entitlement attitude, Stoney Bundy, Hammonds, all of them. They don't want to share
or change with the times,
335 million people, and these people think they should have an overwhelming share of America for themselves.
I have heard it for years and it gets old. Just look at how wildlife suffers because of the takers, and consequently hunting of course.

You don't hear stoney talking about that, silence
 
>Eleven,
>
>Read the link in my post
>above and try to get
>a grip on what has
>taken place and try to
>glean perhaps a clue as
>to what is really going
>on with not only the
>Bundys but the Hammonds and
>much of rural America. The
>West lost so much during
>the Clinton/Babbitt reign and it
>hasn't slowed down since. If
>you just take the time
>to find out what has
>taken place with these families
>over the last several decades,
>you might have a change
>of heart. You are one
>bitter person. You seem to
>be just another sheeple amongst
>the every growing masses of
>the dumb downed.


You may want to change tactics. Insulting people aren't going to convince them to change over to your way of thinking.

The Bundys aren't good people. I know, I was in Vegas during Cliven's incident and we had every idiot with an AR blazing through on their way to Bunkerville drooling about armed confrontation with the Feds.

Based on the newspaper articles, it sounds like the Hammonds aren't either. Maybe cut from the same cloth.
 
I don't know the Hammonds personally. but some of my friends know them. I'd say the attitude is they can take them or leave them. not a love or hate relationship .

Bobcat if I were in charge I'd enforce the law with force. offer them the chance to surrender or die if they resist arrest. but, I might start a chit mess by making them martyrs in the process. but if we're going to run scared from terrorists then we should leave the ragheads alone too.

If an armed gang took over the post office in your SLC and refused to leave what's the difference? I say a line in the sand needs to be drawn. if they want to take their guns and play cowboy there are millions of acres of sage brush they're perfectly welcome to go camp in. it's open to the public because it belongs to the public.















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

167FD44F-F8DB-4803-8A61-140A7B9166FB.jpeg
982287C6-2442-4286-AEA8-8A308A958B45.jpeg
IMG_0043.jpg
B3659141-B47B-4276-B2D7-BA0AF0E371E6.png
Resized_20211120_083144.jpeg
7A6C1456-B13A-4AD7-B5F6-7C3DBC009974.png
Screenshot_20230718_124640_Instagram.jpg
IMG_8735.png
DE09906A-F668-42FC-9A85-B83F85AE6BB7.jpeg
472CEDD1-840E-453F-80B7-48AC346D5570.jpeg
front.JPG
20211007_083708.jpg
Back
Top Bottom