Nevada BLM actions background

Pages

682 posts / 0 new
Last post
RSL's picture
RSL
Offline
Joined: 9/25/09

Hear me out.  I’m not a lawyer.

I believe that Cliven Bundy’s grandfather was granted the water rights and the grazing rights back in the 1870’s to (most) of the property in question in this dispute.  These rights were granted just like LA, Las Vegas, Phoenix and any of a number of government entities were granted water rights way back when.  None of these governments pay anyone for the water that they claim from these “rights.”

Cliven Bundy’s grandfather wasn’t paying any agency for his “granted” water and land use rights.  It wasn’t until the BLM was created that Cliven Bundy’s father was asked to voluntary pay “grazing fees.”  The fee was to be paid for an agreement that he would enter into with the BLM to help pay for the BLM to hire scientists/specialists to HELP the ranchers to increase their production on the land.  By 1993 Cliven Bundy had determined that the BLM was not helping him any more and he “fired” them and quit paying them grazing fees that the BLM were supposed use to help him.  They were not helping him any more and he was justified in firing them.

This is my take on the situation.  I’m not sure that he can get a fair day in court without a powerful lawyer.

 

Steve.

RSL's picture
RSL
Offline
Joined: 9/25/09

ps:  One other thing that hasn't been discussed much is water rights.  Cliven Bundy has water rights for his ranch operations.  If his ranch operations can be shut down he will lose his water rights and they will be sold.  The seller be it the BLM or Clark County will not make money but you can be sure that the people that make the sale possible will profit.

Steve.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Bundy on television says it takes 320 acres to support a cow.  If land is that poor I don't think it should be grazed at all.  Remember gst's post about the BLM was supposed to help ranchers, and the article showed sheep in Wyoming.  The land had been grazed far beyond capacity.  When I visited the Great Bend area of Texas this winter and read the history of grazing there it was an eye opener.  It's been 100+ years and the land has not recovered. 
I think the BLM was started to manage federal lands not help ranchers, although they did.  I think their main purpose was to keep ranchers from destroying the land like they did in Great Bend Texas.
I don't understand how a cow can live on land that requires 320 acres to feed her.  Do they sprint from grass spear to grass spear?  Energetics should come into play here and I don't see where the intake would meet the output if grass clumps are so far apart that a cow burns more energy getting to the next clump of grass than she gets out of it.  I would say it's time to shut down the grazing on that allotment tortoise or no tortoise. 

By 1993 Cliven Bundy had determined that the BLM was not helping him any more and he “fired” them

 Ooooooh my ----------------

The IRS isn't helping me.   I think I'm going to fire them.   
eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

Plainsman Said:
Bundy on television says it takes 320 acres to support a cow.  If land is that poor I don't think it should be grazed at all.  Remember gst's post about the BLM was supposed to help ranchers, and the article showed sheep in Wyoming.  The land had been grazed far beyond capacity.  When I visited the Great Bend area of Texas this winter and read the history of grazing there it was an eye opener.  It's been 100+ years and the land has not recovered. 
I think the BLM was started to manage federal lands not help ranchers, although they did.  I think their main purpose was to keep ranchers from destroying the land like they did in Great Bend Texas.
I don't understand how a cow can live on land that requires 320 acres to feed her.  Do they sprint from grass spear to grass spear?  Energetics should come into play here and I don't see where the intake would meet the output if grass clumps are so far apart that a cow burns more energy getting to the next clump of grass than she gets out of it.  I would say it's time to shut down the grazing on that allotment tortoise or no tortoise. 

By 1993 Cliven Bundy had determined that the BLM was not helping him any more and he “fired” them

 Ooooooh my ----------------

The IRS isn't helping me.   I think I'm going to fire them.   

I'm not sure who'd want to eat meat from cattle that was raised on that type of situation. 

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

RSL Said:
ps:  One other thing that hasn't been discussed much is water rights.

Most people do not understand western states water rights.

It was why I have asked a couple of the questions I did no one wanted to aswer.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:
Bundy on television says it takes 320 acres to support a cow.  If land is that poor I don't think it should be grazed at all.  Remember gst's post about the BLM was supposed to help ranchers, and the article showed sheep in Wyoming.  It was language taken directly from the BLM website Bruce. The land had been grazed far beyond capacity. That is why the ranchers themselves asked for help. When I visited the Great Bend area of Texas this winter and read the history of grazing there it was an eye opener.  It's been 100+ years and the land has not recovered. Bruce you do know this area has been in nearly a decades long drought right???
I think the BLM was started to manage federal lands not help ranchers, although they did.  Bruce, you will ignore language taken directly from the BLM website????? you asked for proof to the statement it was formed to help ranchers. I provided it for you straight from the BLM website and included the link to it. And yet you continue to deny it. I think their main purpose was to keep ranchers from destroying the land like they did in Great Bend Texas. Remember bruce it was the ranchers themselves that sought the help to address over grazing.
I don't understand how a cow can live on land that requires 320 acres to feed her.  Do they sprint from grass spear to grass spear?  Energetics should come into play here and I don't see where the intake would meet the output if grass clumps are so far apart that a cow burns more energy getting to the next clump of grass than she gets out of it.  Perhaps you and ron can start a ranching class down there. I would say it's time to shut down the grazing on that allotment tortoise or no tortoise.  So the hundreds of thousands of cattle that have been produced on these lands over the 100 plus years they have been used in a multiple use agreement do not count? You seem to be willing to dismiss the multiple use agreement and laws that ladd mentioned because YOU think they should be? Seems like this is the very type govt person that is the heart of the problem here Bruce.

By 1993 Cliven Bundy had determined that the BLM was not helping him any more and he “fired” them

 Ooooooh my ----------------

The IRS isn't helping me.   I think I'm going to fire them.   

plainsman, you come on here claimng to be a "grazing advocate". And yet your true beliefs seem to have came to light here.

What do you know about Allen Savory and what he has done in desert enviroments regarding grazing?

Plainsman, if grazing is banned as you want it to be on these lands that have multiple use agreements what will be left?

Oh right development such as what Sen Reid is profiting from.

I'm sure he is glad of your support in helping him remove these cattle from lands they have been on since tis part of the country was settled.


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

eyexer Said:

I'm not sure who'd want to eat meat from cattle that was raised on that type of situation. 

ever eat at McDonalds or Burger King?

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
Remember bruce it was the ranchers themselves that sought the help to address over grazing.

So your saying it's sort of like a drunk that can't stop so he asks for help.  I don't know, my parents never had a problem with overgrazing.  Maybe they had more self control.  At least I know it didn't require a federal agency to help them. 

What do you know about Allen Savory

One of our biologists had professional contact with him about his holistic management.   I worked with that biologist for five years.  That's why I disagreed with you in one thread on nodakoutdoors when you tried to give credit for holistic management to some old rancher (named Ray I think) in Montana.  I am very familiar with Allen Savory. 

From that debate I said:

I hope others will forgive me, but I had a friendly question to ask and am not looking for debate on this. I would PM you , but those always go south also. You mentioned holistic grazing done by Ray. One of the biologists I worked with was working on grazing systems and looking at waterfowl nesting success in different systems. It went so well that NDSU duplicated the study at the Streeter experiment station to look at beef production. Anyway, I spent some time with the guy and had to read up on the holistic management system developed by Allan Savory. Is that the same system that Ray worked with? We often take credit for things here in America, but Allan is from Rhodesia. Well, it was called Rhodesia but I think that is gone now. A family friend was a missionary in Northern Rhodesia, but I think that is Zambia now. Anyway are we talking about the same grazing system. What did Ray do?

Sorry to take this off subject guys, I apologize. I'm just so darn curious about some of these things even though I am retired now. Thank you for your patients with me. :thumb:

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

gst you got caught in the lie and cannot man up and accept that you where caught.

The land came to be US Gov land in 1848 remained so, never was the state of NV land straight up and simple. The Bundy family entered into that area some 30 years later.

The time line just does not work for the claims he is making. Courts have already ruled that the ownership has not been broken.

No matter how bad you want Bundy to be right gst he is not and the timeline I posed along with the court decisions that where included really shows that you and your minions wanking away are either clueless or dumb or radicals or all of the above.

rsl The issue of water rights does play a role in this, I am not giving the BLM a pass nor do I think they are acting in a manner that is or has been proper for the ranchers. However the Hage Family has taken the proper course and won in court where based on the documentation should prevail in the higher courts.

Bundy forfeited his rights to pursure that same avenue with his actions. Again wrong on their part does not make give justification to  Bundy's wrong actions either. This is what gst and other supporters of Bundy have to grasp.

Like  I said a long time ago in this thread, one can get a very clear understanding of where Bundy went wrong by reading the court decisions as well as listening to his many statements he has made over the years.

The courts have stated he had not presented the documentation to support his claims.He has stated he does not have them as well. He recognized the BLM ownership of the land for years then when they in his opinion where not following the agreement refused to pay the fees but continued to use the land anyway. Any money or improvements made on his part after that point where not done under  binding agreement. Nor as the courts found constitute because they where illegal activity basis to retain any water rights tied to them.

It is pretty simple if anyone can take of the blinders or put aside the bias. I did not comment on this issue until I had done my reading on the court findings. Once I had, it was very clear where he screwed himself in all this!

So once again the time line is pretty clear, Bundy made a poor choice in 93 that cost him any standing for his current and even past claims.

The Feds where legally entitled to act as they did, but as I said before thought it was an over the top response not needed and I will not disagree designed to intimidate. It is that very reason why I opposed the actions they took.

Then there is the separate issue of what Dirty Harry tried to do or appears at least tried to do. Separate and having no relevant bearings on Bundy's standings.

The bloviating on this is pretty clear that rule of law does not matter to them. Instead they try and imply that Bundy is victim who had no part in what is happened to him. But reality is that he is a victim of his own poor choice and nothing more.

This understanding does not make one anti rancher, or even pro government it simply makes one informed of the events and why the outcome occurred.

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Longshot's picture
Longshot
Offline
Joined: 12/1/03

gst Said:

RSL Said:
ps:  One other thing that hasn't been discussed much is water rights.

Most people do not understand western states water rights.

It was why I have asked a couple of the questions I did no one wanted to aswer.

I would guess the courts know what they need to about water rights.  They ruled against him.  You have to be dense to not understand that.  Why hasn't he appealed?  My guess is that he knows he has no right to this property, but still wants the free grazing. 

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

North Dakota ranks number 15th in cattle numbers........1,770,000

Nevada comes in at number 37th in cattle numbers.......455,000

http://www.cattlerange.com/cattle-graphs/all-cattle-numbers.html

North Dakota square miles ..................................................70,704

Nevada.........square miles.....................................................110,567

We have almost 4 times as many cattle on almost half as much land. Nice. 

North Dakota has surpassed Hawaii as having the happiest people. Not counting Plainsman Ron, Dick Monson and a small handfull of doom and gloomers.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Of course we have twice as many cattle for the land we have.  You are familiar with grazing capacity are you not?  I can only give the data I learned at NDSU long long ago.  gst don't like old data, but here goes.  The Red River Valley grazing rate is 3 to 5 acres per AUM.  The Jamestown area is 5 to 9 acres per AUM.  The North Dakota Badlands is variable with 9 to 21 acres per AUM.  That changes a lot from pasture to pasture, but it's a general rate for each area as I remember from 1969. 

So Bundy says his area takes 320 acres per AUM.  I wonder if I could google Nevada grazing capacity and get any information?  I'll give it a shot when I finish my honey do list today. 
 

  North Dakota has surpassed Hawaii as having the happiest people. Not counting Plainsman Ron, Dick Monson and a small handfull of doom and gloomers.

I'm happy, but I watch the habitat destroyers and point them out.  I guess you guys will support a rancher even if he is criminal.  Nice.  Don't get me wrong it doesn't tick me off I'm thankful  for you guys to hold up and showcase the mentality that causes so many habitat/anti-conservation activities.  Thank you, thank you, thank you. 

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Plainsman wrote,

I'm happy, but I watch the habitat destroyers and point them out.  I guess you guys will support a rancher even if he is criminal. 

Nope, but I have met Ramona Hage and Wayne Hage's second wife Helen Chenoweth. The very best people you could ever meet.

Don't get me wrong it doesn't tick me off I'm thankful  for you guys to hold up and showcase the mentality that causes so many habitat/anti-conservation activities. 

Nope, wrong again. Land is something where we the people control the means of production. Economic develpoment.

Mr. Bundy had trouble with the BLM because he claims they turned on ranchers. I can beleive that because when you think of USDA/APHIS you think of a agricultural friendly agency. But something is going wrong. Visited with Senator Hoeven about it and he said the trouble is the Obama administration is making appointments to positions within the department that are poison.

I don't know who is doing the vetting process at USDA/APHIS but I do know of one lady there who worked for the Humane Society of the United States and before that the US Fish and Wildilfe Service.

Government cannot create jobs as Obama asserts, but through too many regulations they can sure stifle one.

We in ND are forunate that we don't have a bunch of public land.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Fritz the Cat Said:
Plainsman wrote,

I'm happy, but I watch the habitat destroyers and point them out.  I guess you guys will support a rancher even if he is criminal. 

Nope, but I have met Ramona Hage and Wayne Hage's second wife Helen Chenoweth. The very best people you could ever meet.  Do you think deception is near the same thing as lying?  Hardwaterman has said he thinks the Hage's were right and the government wrong.  I have stated over and over I am talking about the Bundy's.  Yet when I ask will you support a rancher even if he is a criminal you start talking about the Hage's.  I hope people notice the deception Fritz.  You know as well as I it was not the Hage's I was referring to.  Maybe I should ask you if you support Bundy even though he is a freeloader trying to steel free grazing.  He lost in court and he is still grazing.  They need to freeze his bank assets.   

Don't get me wrong it doesn't tick me off I'm thankful  for you guys to hold up and showcase the mentality that causes so many habitat/anti-conservation activities. 

Nope, wrong again. Land is something where we the people control the means of production. Economic develpoment.  Is that misspelling of "development" a Froydian slip as in opponent?   As in one who resistes anti-conservation  efforts. 

Mr. Bundy had trouble with the BLM because he claims they turned on ranchers. I can beleive that because when you think of USDA/APHIS you think of a agricultural friendly agency. But something is going wrong. Visited with Senator Hoeven about it and he said the trouble is the Obama administration is making appointments to positions within the department that are poison.  I agree about the poor appointments made by Obama, but it ends there.  Bundy is in the wrong period.  There is no argument for him, and the courts agree. 

I don't know who is doing the vetting process at USDA/APHIS but I do know of one lady there who worked for the Humane Society of the United States and before that the US Fish and Wildilfe Service. I remember one working for the Fish and Widlife Service and thought it was an abomination. 

Government cannot create jobs as Obama asserts, but through too many regulations they can sure stifle one.

We in ND are forunate that we don't have a bunch of public land.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:

BringingTheRain Said:
 http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

However, the theory that Reid's putative involvement in the Bundy dispute was motivated by a desire to somehow profit from the building of a solar plant falls flat in the face of two basic facts: The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government, and ENN gave up the solar project and terminated its agreement to buy land to house it as far back as June 2013:
A Chinese-backed company is pulling the plug on a multibillion-dollar solar project near Laughlin after it was unable to find customers for the power that would have been generated there, a Clark County spokesman said.

In a letter, an executive from ENN Mojave Energy LLC informed the county that the company was terminating its agreement to purchase 9,000 acres near Laughlin, stating that the "market will not support a project of this scale and nature at this time."

The company, a

 

subsidiary of ENN Group, described as the largest energy company in China, said it was unable to sign the necessary power purchase agreements to sell the energy generated from the solar plant to utilities in Nevada or neighboring states.

The project was broken down into phases, but if fully completed, it was expected to generate enough energy to power 200,000 homes with a price tag of $1 billion to $6 billion.

The move was hailed as a much-needed boost for economic development in the southern part of the state and was projected to create up to 2,200 permanent jobs.

Commissioners agreed to sell the land at $4.5 million — about a sixth of its appraised value — in December 2011 to jump-start the development, but they put in place an aggressive timeline that required ENN to secure the complicated power purchase agreements.

With the solar project now just a mirage, commissioners will discuss what to do with the 9,000 acres of county-owned land at their July 2 meeting.

Even the conservative Breitbart site debunked this conspiracy claim, noting:
Despite the obvious partisan gain to be had if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's son Rory (a failed 2010 Nevada gubernatorial candidate) had somehow been involved in a "land grab" affecting the Bundy family ranch operation — the facts just do not pan out as such. Indeed, Rory Reid did in fact have a hand in plans to reclassify federal lands for renewable energy developments. Just northeast of Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force Base, plans were drawn by Reid allies to potentially develop 5,717 acres of land for such use. While it would be fair to claim that such activity was in Bundy's relative neighborhood, the federal lands once leased by the family were more than 20 miles away, east of Overton, Nevada.

Some versions of this conspiracy theory mistake the proposed ENN Mojave Energy site with that of the Moapa Southern Paiute Solar project, but the latter's 250MW solar power plant is already under construction (so there is no need to grab land for it), and, as noted in Wildlife News, the Moapa plant is being built near the Moapa Indian Reservation and not on public land disputed by Cliven Bundy:
A cursory search shows a sudden explosion of articles claiming Nevada's senior senator, Harry Reid, wants Bundy's land (all Bundy actually owns is a melon farm) to build a solar plant to enrich himself and his son.

Bundy has been trespassing over 750,000 acres of U.S. public land to the south of Mesquite and Bunkerville, Nevada. Bundy's actual private property is his melon farm at Bunkerville, which looks like maybe 100 acres on Google Earth. There is a solar farm. But it is not on the huge swath of land Bundy is trespassing on. The solar facility is actually under construction near the Moapa Indian Reservation about ten miles closer to Las Vegas.

Likewise, another area currently being studied by BLM for the possible development of solar plants, commonly known as the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, is sometimes mistakenly thrown into the conspiracy theory mix by persons who point to a BLM report listing "Cattle Trespass Impacts" and claim that it documents the BLM's intent to use the disputed land for solar development:
Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.

But as explained at the Wildlife News, that isn't what the quoted blurb means:
There is some feeble effort to try to mitigate the damage to wildlife [caused by solar development]. Some of it is near the sites of these solar mirrors. This is called "primary mitigation." Some is in a place distant to the solar power site. This is called "secondary mitigation." Wildlife mitigation is things like planting grass wildlife need or like, development of new water sources for wildlife to drink, and restoration of rangeland overgrazed by cattle.

All this bureaucratic language means is that private groups like the Western Watersheds Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Gold Butte and Friends of Joshua Tree Forest don't think the damage from solar power plants located elsewhere can be mitigated at Gold Butte because the cattle will tromp all over it.


Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#Z4AUApk1674ITXQF.99
However, the theory that Reid's putative involvement in the Bundy dispute was motivated by a desire to somehow profit from the building of a solar plant falls flat in the face of two basic facts: The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government, and ENN gave up the solar project and terminated its agreement to buy land to house it as far back as June 2013:
A Chinese-backed company is pulling the plug on a multibillion-dollar solar project near Laughlin after it was unable to find customers for the power that would have been generated there, a Clark County spokesman said.

In a letter, an executive from ENN Mojave Energy LLC informed the county that the company was terminating its agreement to purchase 9,000 acres near Laughlin, stating that the "market will not support a project of this scale and nature at this time."

The company, a

 

subsidiary of ENN Group, described as the largest energy company in China, said it was unable to sign the necessary power purchase agreements to sell the energy generated from the solar plant to utilities in Nevada or neighboring states.

The project was broken down into phases, but if fully completed, it was expected to generate enough energy to power 200,000 homes with a price tag of $1 billion to $6 billion.

The move was hailed as a much-needed boost for economic development in the southern part of the state and was projected to create up to 2,200 permanent jobs.

Commissioners agreed to sell the land at $4.5 million — about a sixth of its appraised value — in December 2011 to jump-start the development, but they put in place an aggressive timeline that required ENN to secure the complicated power purchase agreements.

With the solar project now just a mirage, commissioners will discuss what to do with the 9,000 acres of county-owned land at their July 2 meeting.

Even the conservative Breitbart site debunked this conspiracy claim, noting:
Despite the obvious partisan gain to be had if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's son Rory (a failed 2010 Nevada gubernatorial candidate) had somehow been involved in a "land grab" affecting the Bundy family ranch operation — the facts just do not pan out as such. Indeed, Rory Reid did in fact have a hand in plans to reclassify federal lands for renewable energy developments. Just northeast of Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force Base, plans were drawn by Reid allies to potentially develop 5,717 acres of land for such use. While it would be fair to claim that such activity was in Bundy's relative neighborhood, the federal lands once leased by the family were more than 20 miles away, east of Overton, Nevada.

Some versions of this conspiracy theory mistake the proposed ENN Mojave Energy site with that of the Moapa Southern Paiute Solar project, but the latter's 250MW solar power plant is already under construction (so there is no need to grab land for it), and, as noted in Wildlife News, the Moapa plant is being built near the Moapa Indian Reservation and not on public land disputed by Cliven Bundy:
A cursory search shows a sudden explosion of articles claiming Nevada's senior senator, Harry Reid, wants Bundy's land (all Bundy actually owns is a melon farm) to build a solar plant to enrich himself and his son.

Bundy has been trespassing over 750,000 acres of U.S. public land to the south of Mesquite and Bunkerville, Nevada. Bundy's actual private property is his melon farm at Bunkerville, which looks like maybe 100 acres on Google Earth. There is a solar farm. But it is not on the huge swath of land Bundy is trespassing on. The solar facility is actually under construction near the Moapa Indian Reservation about ten miles closer to Las Vegas.

Likewise, another area currently being studied by BLM for the possible development of solar plants, commonly known as the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, is sometimes mistakenly thrown into the conspiracy theory mix by persons who point to a BLM report listing "Cattle Trespass Impacts" and claim that it documents the BLM's intent to use the disputed land for solar development:
Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.

But as explained at the Wildlife News, that isn't what the quoted blurb means:
There is some feeble effort to try to mitigate the damage to wildlife [caused by solar development]. Some of it is near the sites of these solar mirrors. This is called "primary mitigation." Some is in a place distant to the solar power site. This is called "secondary mitigation." Wildlife mitigation is things like planting grass wildlife need or like, development of new water sources for wildlife to drink, and restoration of rangeland overgrazed by cattle.

All this bureaucratic language means is that private groups like the Western Watersheds Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Gold Butte and Friends of Joshua Tree Forest don't think the damage from solar power plants located elsewhere can be mitigated at Gold Butte because the cattle will tromp all over it.


Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#Z4AUApk1674ITXQF.99

btr, do YOU understand mitigation?

snoopes also seems to not understand mitigation. They also seem more than ready to dismiss the pretty straight forward language that was once on the BLM website that once this situation escalated and information begin getting out was removed, that provides a glimpse into the motive of removing the cattle from these lands so they DO qualify for mitigation. 

Big surprise that "Wild Life News" would have an "explaination.
And that groups like Western Watershed Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Gold Butte, and Friends of Joshua Tree Forrest would dismiss these pretty connected facts.

All that is being said here is that with the cattle "tramping" all over Gold Butte, it would not qualify for "mitigation" of the Solar farm area. Most prosecutors would suggest that simply increases the motive for why these cattle were being removed.

Show were snoopes uncovered documents saying these lands would NOT be used for mitigation even if the cattle were removed and you might have something.

snoopes seems to have little understanding that even if Gold Butte is not "Bundys land" these ranches have relied on these Federal lands and the multiple use laws they were originally created with for generations to make their living. Somehow they seem to think that this is somehow about a 100 acre melon patch. They somehow seem willing to dismiss the history that occurs all across the west of how this 100 acres came to be deeded lands while hundreds of thousands of acres surrounding it are govt. They seem not to understand how land usage is tied to water rights in these western lands.

But as explained at the Wildlife News, that isn't what the quoted blurb means:
There is some feeble effort to try to mitigate the damage to wildlife [caused by solar development]. Some of it is near the sites of these solar mirrors. This is called "primary mitigation." Some is in a place distant to the solar power site. This is called "secondary mitigation." Wildlife mitigation is things like planting grass wildlife need or like, development of new water sources for wildlife to drink, and restoration of rangeland overgrazed by cattle.

All this bureaucratic language means is that private groups like the Western Watersheds Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Gold Butte and Friends of Joshua Tree Forest don't think the damage from solar power plants located elsewhere can be mitigated at Gold Butte because the cattle will tromp all over it.


Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#Z4AUApk1674ITXQF.99

So why would neither "Wildlife News" or snoopes mention or explain why the BLM would remove the documents on their website that spoke to the need to remove cattle from the Gold Butte area in order for it to qualify for mitigation once this stand off started?.

I wonder if snoopes has some fact checking that the sale of these lands for development of housing and solar farms and the redrawing of desert tortoise refuge boundries to accommodate this development has less impact on the desert tortoise than other land uses.

To be honest, I haven't really paid much attention to this whole thing and when I came across the snopes article, I couldn't help but post it knowing how well snopes is like on here. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 As for that Cliven Bundy character, how much more un-American can that man get?? 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

Fritz the Cat Said:
North Dakota ranks number 15th in cattle numbers........1,770,000

Nevada comes in at number 37th in cattle numbers.......455,000

http://www.cattlerange.com/cattle-graphs/all-cattle-numbers.html

North Dakota square miles ..................................................70,704

Nevada.........square miles.....................................................110,567

We have almost 4 times as many cattle on almost half as much land. Nice. 

North Dakota has surpassed Hawaii as having the happiest people. Not counting Plainsman Ron, Dick Monson and a small handfull of doom and gloomers.

You must be talking hardcore conservative types?

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 That whole militia thing is embarrassing too under these circumstances. looked like a bunch of tacticool dudes who hate government, just wanting a reason to bring out their weapons and look badass. 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

BringingTheRain Said:
 That whole militia thing is embarrassing too under these circumstances. looked like a bunch of tacticool dudes who hate government, just wanting a reason to bring out their weapons and look badass. 

Under the circumstances they gave a black eye to responsible gun owners.  Brains of children in adult bodies.  They don't care about anyone but themselves.  If they succeed you can bet some rancher in North Dakota will give it a try too.  I would not have thought that until I seen gst's an Fritz's posts.
With so few people agreeing with them how long do you suppose it will be before the understand they crapped in their own nest, and give it up?  Perhaps never. 

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Neat

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Neat

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Man you guys are brutal today.

Plainsman said,

With so few people agreeing with them how long do you suppose it will be before the understand they crapped in their own nest, and give it up?

So few people agreeing with me??? This is FBO. I fully realize where I'm at.

Bringin the rain is bringing back his snopes piece. It seems snopes got their info from the wildlife news.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/

What is the Wildlife News? Who publish's that?

http://www.wildlife.org/publications/wildlife-news-briefs

Ah yes the wildlife society, all the news that's fit to invent. A person just needs to be able to smell where and what you're standing in.

ndraised's picture
ndraised
Offline
Joined: 3/27/05

Yea, you who are with mr bundy are in the wrong for taking up arms against the law...  It is that simple.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/rachel-maddow-fox-news-cliven-b...

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:

Remember bruce it was the ranchers themselves that sought the help to address over grazing.

So your saying it's sort of like a drunk that can't stop so he asks for help.  I don't know, my parents never had a problem with overgrazing.  Maybe they had more self control.  At least I know it didn't require a federal agency to help them. 
  

Really?

What do you know about Allen Savory

One of our biologists had professional contact with him about his holistic management.   I worked with that biologist for five years.  That's why I disagreed with you in one thread on nodakoutdoors when you tried to give credit for holistic management to some old rancher (named Ray I think) in Montana.  I am very familiar with Allen Savory. 
Plaisnamn, Ray Banister learned much of what he has shared here in  the US from Allen Savory. If you are "very familiar" with Allen Savory, then you know most of his work was done in countries like Africa. Ray Bannister brought those practices and ideas to the US.

If you truly know about Allen Savory and Ray Bannister and others like his are doing, then you know what can be done with grazing on lands such as the ones you have claimed there should be no grazing on.

So Bruce why would you claim there should be no grazing on thse multiple use lands?

From that debate I said:

I hope others will forgive me, but I had a friendly question to ask and am not looking for debate on this. I would PM you , but those always go south also. You mentioned holistic grazing done by Ray. One of the biologists I worked with was working on grazing systems and looking at waterfowl nesting success in different systems. It went so well that NDSU duplicated the study at the Streeter experiment station to look at beef production. Anyway, I spent some time with the guy and had to read up on the holistic management system developed by Allan Savory. Is that the same system that Ray worked with? We often take credit for things here in America, but Allan is from Rhodesia. Well, it was called Rhodesia but I think that is gone now. A family friend was a missionary in Northern Rhodesia, but I think that is Zambia now. Anyway are we talking about the same grazing system. What did Ray do?

Sorry to take this off subject guys, I apologize. I'm just so darn curious about some of these things even though I am retired now. Thank you for your patients with me. :thumb:

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

ndraised Said:
Yea, you who are with mr bundy are in the wrong for taking up arms against the law...  It is that simple.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/rachel-maddow-fox-news-cliven-b...

How about a pen or a keyboard?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:
gst you got caught in the lie and cannot man up and accept that you where caught.

  ron, you are now dismissing universally accepted English language standards to continue your accusation of a lie?

The land came to be US Gov land in 1848 remained so, never was the state of NV land straight up and simple. The Bundy family entered into that area some 30 years later.

Who owned the water rights ron? Remember ron that is the premise Wayne Hage used to overturn the claims the BLM made against him which were upheld by the courts. Do you know if the Bundys can trace an unbroken chin of ownership and improvements of the water rights back to when their ancestors purchased them?

No you can not any more than I can. Time will tell in the courts I would imagine.

You admitted earlier you do not know much about water rights in these western alnds ron, it is showing.

The time line just does not work for the claims he is making. Courts have already ruled that the ownership has not been broken.

On the water rights ron?? Big difference.

No matter how bad you want Bundy to be right gst he is not and the timeline I posed along with the court decisions that where included really shows that you and your minions wanking away are either clueless or dumb or radicals or all of the above.
   ron, once again I have never said he is "right" in not paying fees to the BLM have I. Wethr he can produce the same documentation Wayne Hage did remains to be seen doesn't it.

Because despite your erroneous claims, the court case that went against Bundy was NOT about that, but simply whether he had paid the BLM fees which he readily admits he did not.

rsl The issue of water rights does play a role in this, I am not giving the BLM a pass nor do I think they are acting in a manner that is or has been proper for the ranchers. However the Hage Family has taken the proper course and won in court where based on the documentation should prevail in the higher courts.

Bundy forfeited his rights to pursure that same avenue with his actions. How, do you know he has forfieted his water rights because of his actions?? Do you know something that will likely be decided by the courts?? Tell us ron what do you base these claims on? Again wrong on their part does not make give justification to  Bundy's wrong actions either. This is what gst and other supporters of Bundy have to grasp.

Like  I said a long time ago in this thread, one can get a very clear understanding of where Bundy went wrong by reading the court decisions as well as listening to his many statements he has made over the years.

The courts have stated he had not presented the documentation to support his claims.He has stated he does not have them as well. He recognized the BLM ownership of the land for years then when they in his opinion where not following the agreement refused to pay the fees but continued to use the land anyway. Any money or improvements made on his part after that point where not done under  binding agreement. Nor as the courts found constitute because they where illegal activity basis to retain any water rights tied to them.

It is pretty simple if anyone can take of the blinders or put aside the bias. I did not comment on this issue until I had done my reading on the court findings. But yet you erroneously claimed these "court findings were regarding Bundys connection back to the original purchase of water rights! How much smoke are you trying to blow here ron. Once I had, it was very clear where he screwed himself in all this!

So once again the time line is pretty clear, Bundy made a poor choice in 93 that cost him any standing for his current and even past claims.

The Feds where legally entitled to act as they did, but as I said before thought it was an over the top response not needed and I will not disagree designed to intimidate. It is that very reason why I opposed the actions they took.

Then there is the separate issue of what Dirty Harry tried to do or appears at least tried to do. Separate and having no relevant bearings on Bundy's standings.

The bloviating on this is pretty clear that rule of law does not matter to them. Instead they try and imply that Bundy is victim who had no part in what is happened to him. But reality is that he is a victim of his own poor choice and nothing more.

This understanding does not make one anti rancher, or even pro government it simply makes one informed of the events and why the outcome occurred.

Sounds a bit like "bloviating" to me ron.

Hows your remedial English classes coming ron? Is, Was past tense, present tense, confusing I know, but stick with it and you'll be reading at a 3rd grade level before you know it.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Longshot Said:

gst Said:

RSL Said:
ps:  One other thing that hasn't been discussed much is water rights.

Most people do not understand western states water rights.

It was why I have asked a couple of the questions I did no one wanted to aswer.

I would guess the courts know what they need to about water rights.  They ruled against him.  Just as I have asked ron, please show the court case where the courts "ruled" against Bundy on the linkage of control on the water rights as they did in the Hage case. You have to be dense to not understand that.  . Why hasn't he appealed?  My guess is that he knows he has no right to this property, but still wants the free grazing. 

Hardwaterman Said:
 I did not comment on this issue until I had done my reading on the court findings.

Given ron has demonstrated he is short of a 3rd grade reading level by his own standards on the previous page, I would seek a second opinion longshot.

longshot what do you know about past and present tense in the English language?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:
  I guess you guys will support a rancher even if he is criminal.  Nice. 

Bruce were the people that intentionally broke the Jim Crow laws "criminals"?

Were the people that threw the crates of tea into Boston Harbor "criminals"?

There have been any number of "criminals" whos actions shed light on unjust laws that were righted byt the courts and legislatures.

Apparently you have forgotten what this nation was built upon. Indeed plaisnamn as a former life long govt employee, perhaps you have become broken to the yoke.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 As for that Cliven Bundy character, how much more un-American can that man get?? 

So you prefer the armed BLM agents and snipers training their weapons on the Bundy family for not paying fees for grazing cattle as "American"??

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 That whole militia thing is embarrassing too under these circumstances. looked like a bunch of tacticool dudes who hate government, just wanting a reason to bring out their weapons and look badass. 

There is some of that to a degree, but there are also people that simply believe in the Constitution.

Pages