• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

cattle news - federal flyovers (usa)

Help Support Ranchers.net:

beethoven

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
746
Reaction score
0
Location
alberta
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/Jolley-Federal-Flyovers--The-tin-hat-brigade-was-right-158197355.html?ref=355

Jolley: Federal Flyovers? The tin hat brigade was right
Chuck Jolley | Updated: June 9, 2012

When I first heard of surreptitious EPA flyovers of feed lots in Nebraska and Iowa, I laughed. “Ranks right up there with the black helicopter stories,” I thought. Only people who wear tinfoil hats and cover their windows with Reynolds Wrap® (Trusted Since 1947) to keep the government from scanning their brains would buy into that nonsense.

May I borrow a roll of aluminum foil from someone? I would drop by my local Hy-Vee to purchase some but I’m afraid the feds might get their hands on the supermarket’s scan data and find out what was included in my afternoon purchase of milk, beer and bread. Men in Black 4 might start with Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones knocking on my front door.

“Mr. Jolley?” Smith asks. “We’ve just received some information that you bought a quantity of aluminum foil on June 4, 2012, and during a recent flyover, we were unable to see into your kitchen due to some odd reflective material covering your windows. Would you mind telling us what you did with the foil?” (SFX: Helicopter noise in the not distant enough background). Cut to quick shots of a troop of camouflaged and well armed soldiers moving stealthily through the woods in the back of my house, tight shot of large black sedan parked a few blocks away with man in dark suit talking into a shoulder mic, camera pulls back to reveal “Homeland Security” painted on car door.

A letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, cosigned by most of Nebraska’s congressional delegation, demanding to know what the hell was going on, made me rethink my anti-tinfoil hat position for just a moment. Then, Heather Johnson, NPTelegraph.com, North Platte, Nebraska, wrote, “After recent scrutiny, the Environmental Protection Agency has revealed more details about its aerial surveillance of livestock feeding operations in Nebraska and Iowa.”

Memo for tonight: Spend evening in my workshop making a sign that says, “Welcome, Will, I am unarmed” and wrapping motorcycle helmets in tin foil.

Johnson had learned about the flyovers from Kristen Hassebrook, director of natural resources and environmental affairs for the Nebraska Cattlemen, a beef industry group made up of cattle producers.

Hassebrook said, "It was by happenstance that we found out about them. They never told producers they were doing them, but when the EPA started showing up for inspections and had aerial photos of the producers' operations, people started wondering what was going on."

The EPA’s response to the letter was breathtaking in its disingenuousness. The media office of EPA's Region 7, which serves Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri, emailed a note to NPTelegraph.com saying aerial surveillance is nothing new, and shouldn't have been a surprise to feedlot operators.

The EPA response claimed flyovers are a longstanding practice done to verify compliance with environmental laws and impaired watersheds. The sole purpose, according to the EPA, is to help identify water pollution in areas of the utmost concern. A further claim: Congressional offices were briefed before any surveillance took place, as was the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.

Hassebrook insisted Nebraska Cattlemen was unaware of the practice and expressed a serious concern about privacy. "At any time they can request access to a property without notice. It's a frustration to producers who think they're complying with regulations, but yet, the government still doesn't trust them. The focus might be the cattle in the pens, but the question becomes how much personal privacy a livestock producer has to give up before the government is satisfied.”

Defending the practice, EPA officials said the courts “have found similar types of flights to be legal and said they are done to protect people and the environment from violations of the Clean Water Act.”

In other words, “We are here to protect you from yourselves, whether you need our protection or not. And it’s none of your damn business how we do it.”

Of course, satellites can do the same thing. Instead of EPA photos taken from a helicopter hovering at 2000 feet, NASA can show you shots taken from 250 miles up with enough clarity to count the size of any herd in any feed lot in America as well as tell you the make, color and year of the trucks in the parking lot. And that slightly overweight guy showing male pattern baldness getting into that brand new black F-25O with six bags of cypress mulch, a garden hoe and a loose screw driver (Philips head) rattling around in the back? That’s Jack, the feed lot manager, social security number xxx.xx.xxxx -number redacted, home address and cell phone number are in our data banks and available upon FOIA’d request.

Face the sad facts, my friends. Any semblance of privacy from the government’s prying eyes in the sky started to disappear over half a century ago when the first satellites with onboard cameras were launched. It was a slow but steady erosion until Homeland Security (Preserving Our Freedoms) kicked it into overdrive after it was founded by G.W. Bush, November 25, 2002. Don the hats, cover the windows and don’t do ANYTHING outside that you don’t want your neighbors to see.

Chuck Jolley is a free lance writer, based in Kansas City, who covers a wide range of ag industry topics for Vance Publishing.
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
4,716
Reaction score
1
Location
NW Panhandle Texas
How do you feel about it? Do you think we were right or just starting a debate?
I am glad it is getting more main stream coverage....
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
it is pretty simple....

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

not sure where I found this.. but maybe it was written down and the EPA (and the rest of the government) should start be first reading it and investigating where it might have come from..

because it doesn't jive with "when the EPA started showing up for inspections and had aerial photos of the producers' operations,

,... people started wondering what was going on."

like has the constitution been shredded, lost? or is it just plain ignored by those tasked with upholding it?
 

beethoven

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
746
Reaction score
0
Location
alberta
few things.

the facts of agreement do not guarantee fairness, or accuracy, or justice. for example, slavery existed, was something that some people found beneficial. some others were disadvantaged, however it was the convention of the time, and was agreed to. that was not justice. just because there are numbers who agree, doesn't make it fair, or valid, or correct, or just.

snooping on feedlots is paternalistic, to borrow the current term being used for actions like this.

hard to be in agreement with that.

maybe some producers are gamblers. maybe the law is trying not to be arbitrary. who knows. what can we do. there is a gap between what we do, and what we ought to do.

complaints may have been lodged. unscrupulous practices may be suspected or known. pursuit of offenders is expensive. litigation may be difficult, and so on. i can understand authorities trying to discover offenders and gather information. maybe they have some outcome in mind.

producers need to provide sufficient conditions so as not to suffer their animals and harm the environment etc.

in my mind feedlot conditions are something that require certain obligations. in principle, i question intensive farming practices, but that is not an argument imagined for here or now.

the article puts forth a good argument for the use of satellite.

the fact of helicopter flyovers in close proximity to cattle in any numbers has no merit.

cattle here, for example, have reacted poorly. they were quite outraged with military helicopters moving over our land, the cattle were made very upset and stampeded. curt discussion was had with said military, and we advised them to find alternate routes, to which they agreed to.

was once involved with an objection by crop ins. - their analysis of satellite imagery resulted in questions about the claim.

ins. agency felt the quarter in question was fully treed. we said absolutely not. they said satellite showed fully treed. we cheerfully invited crop inspector to come here and see for themselves. turned out to be an error on their part, ended all friendly, but initially they felt they had found the claim troubling. visit also resulted in a discussion about some other producers making false claims ie., claiming land that turned out to be 'land' that was, as it happened on the bottom of a lake.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
beethoven, do you believe the majority of feedlots are operated in an environmentally friendly manner, or not?

And are the number of feedlots in the US, increasing or decreasing?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
I can understand authorities trying to discover offenders and gather information. maybe they have some outcome in mind.

sounds fair,.. what about random house searches for drug abusers..

or random car searches for illegal immigrants?


or how about urinalysis at the welfare office?... motor vehicle office?

street corner?

why limit authorities ability to search anywhere a crime or violation may occur?


because we as Americans have a Constitutional right to not be subject to unreasonable searches ...

if the flyover is searching for information .. then it is a search... and it is wrong...

it is pretty simple....

Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized









Don't let drones invade our privacy

(CNN) -- When assuming office, every government official must take an oath to abide by and uphold our Constitution. Since 2010, I have made that my mission in Congress. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is not upholding nor abiding by the Constitution -- in fact, this administration is going to great lengths to continually violate it.

Its most recent transgression involves the use of domestic drones.

These small drones are to be used as a crime fighting tool for law enforcement officials. But is unwarranted and constant surveillance by an aerial eye of Big Government the answer?


In a memorandum issued by President Barack Obama's secretary of the Air Force, the stated purpose of these drones is "balancing ... obtaining intelligence information ... and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution."

However, flying over our homes, farms, ranches and businesses and spying on us while we conduct our everyday lives is not an example of protecting our rights. It is an example of violating them.

The domestic use of drones to spy on Americans clearly violates the Fourth Amendment and limits our rights to personal privacy. I do not want a drone hovering over my house, taking photos of whether I separate my recyclables from my garbage.

We should not be treated like criminals or terrorists while we are simply conducting our everyday lives. We should not have our rights infringed upon by unwarranted police-state tactics.

I have introduced legislation into the Senate that restates the Constitution.

This bill protects individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of these drones. The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 will protect Americans' personal privacy by forcing the government to honor our Fourth Amendment rights.

I want to make it clear that I am not arguing against the use of technology. But like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, a warrant needs to be issued to use drones domestically. The police force should have the power to collect intelligence; however, I believe they must go through a judge and request a warrant to do so. The judicial branch must have some authority over drones, as they do with other law enforcement tools.

My bill will restate the Fourth Amendment and protect American's privacy by forcing police officials to obtain a warrant before using domestic drones.

There are some exceptions within this bill, such as the patrol of our national borders, when immediate action is needed to prevent "imminent danger to life," and when we are under a high risk of a terrorist attack. Otherwise, the government must have probable cause that led them to ask for a warrant before the use of drones is permitted.

If the warrant is not obtained, this act would allow any person to sue the government. This act also specifies that no evidence obtained or collected in violation of this act can be admissible as evidence in a criminal, civil or regulatory action.

Allowing domestic drones to act as spies for the government is a complete violation of our basic right to personal privacy.

Unrestricted drone surveillance conjures up images reminiscent of Orwell's "1984" -- a totalitarian police-state. According to the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

I am sure our police force had good intentions with their suggested drone policies, but do they understand the consequences? Do they realize that they are allowing the government to act as the eye in the sky?

By infringing upon our rights and watching over our every move, the government is not going to protect us, but they will push us one more step closer to completely losing our Fourth Amendment rights. My bill will protect individual privacy against governmental intrusion by these drones and establish a balance by requiring judicial action and allowing protection in court.

I am confident that my colleagues in the Senate will agree with this bill. Each and every one of us took the same oath to abide by and uphold our Constitution. The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act does just that.

Rand Paul, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Kentucky.

and thankfully Senator Paul is at least trying to stop this illegal practice...

ironic isn't it,.. use one illegal act to catch another.. since when did two wrongs make a right?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/rehberg-backs-off-epa-drone-claim-blames-obama/article_93b48355-c5a8-5456-9474-9c6d88743d45.html


Sounds like all the drone hysteria is just a "black helicopter" fantasy conspiracy made up by the rightwingernut media to feed the fear/hate frenzy of their sheeple....And old goatherder Denny is having to eat crow...

And the flyover by manned aircraft is a GW Bush originated plan and policy that has been going on for years....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/rehberg-backs-off-epa-drone-claim-blames-obama/article_93b48355-c5a8-5456-9474-9c6d88743d45.html


Sounds like all the drone hysteria is just a "black helicopter" fantasy conspiracy made up by the rightwingernut media to feed the fear/hate frenzy of their sheeple....And old goatherder Denny is having to eat crow...

And the flyover by manned aircraft is a GW Bush originated plan and policy that has been going on for years....


So it's not happening? Are you sure?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Wednesday, June 20, 2012 CT

An EPA spokesman told the congressional delegation that the fly overs are used to verify compliance with environmental laws. They said they have turned up some problems at Nebraska and Iowa feedlots, after flying over them since 2010.


When EPA flights identified potential feedlot contamination, follow up inspections were done on the ground, the agency said. The result was 39 compliance orders, penalties or letters in Iowa and 14 in Nebraska, the Omaha World Herald reported.


“You should have to have a warrant to invade people's privacy and to spy on them,” Paul said Tuesday in a televised interview with CNN.

http://www.northplattebulletin.com/index.asp?show=news&action=readStory&storyID=23198&pageID=3
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/rehberg-backs-off-epa-drone-claim-blames-obama/article_93b48355-c5a8-5456-9474-9c6d88743d45.html


Sounds like all the drone hysteria is just a "black helicopter" fantasy conspiracy made up by the rightwingernut media to feed the fear/hate frenzy of their sheeple....And old goatherder Denny is having to eat crow...

And the flyover by manned aircraft is a GW Bush originated plan and policy that has been going on for years....


So it's not happening? Are you sure?

Didn't you read the story- Teaparty Denny says its not happening...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/rehberg-backs-off-epa-drone-claim-blames-obama/article_93b48355-c5a8-5456-9474-9c6d88743d45.html


Sounds like all the drone hysteria is just a "black helicopter" fantasy conspiracy made up by the rightwingernut media to feed the fear/hate frenzy of their sheeple....And old goatherder Denny is having to eat crow...

And the flyover by manned aircraft is a GW Bush originated plan and policy that has been going on for years....


So it's not happening? Are you sure?




Didn't you read the story- Teaparty Denny says its not happening...


Didn't you once call him a liar?


Is it not happening in Montana, or is the EPA not making these flights for the exclusive purpose of monitoring feedlots, but noticing feedlot violations, while making flights for other reasons?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
So it's not happening? Are you sure?




Didn't you read the story- Teaparty Denny says its not happening...


Didn't you once call him a liar?


Is it not happening in Montana, or is the EPA not making these flights for the exclusive purpose of monitoring feedlots, but noticing feedlot violations, while making flights for other reasons?

Denny LIE-- or use FEAR and/or HATE to politic.. :???: You must know our Denny... :wink: :p
I do know that if he hadn't got caught barebutted overrunning his mouth- he wouldn't be taking back his words now...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
I bet it really bites your butt that he's higher in the polls than Tester.





Poll: Tester, Rehberg race remains deadlocked

By Cameron Joseph - 06/19/12 05:35 PM ET
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont.) remain statistically tied in their Senate race, according to a new poll from the conservative Rasmussen Reports.

Rehberg leads Tester by 49 to 47 percent, according to the poll, the latest to show the race within the margin of error.


The candidates had their first public debate last weekend, both have been on the air for weeks, and outside groups have pummeled both of them for months with attack ads. But the race has remained essentially unchanged since the beginning — the majority of polls going back to last November have had the candidates within three percentage points of each other. The Hill rates the race a "tossup."

The automated poll of 500 likely voters was conducted on June 18 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Its the taxpayers of the nation that will suffer if Denny gets elected--as his type of Teaparty Porkiholous we can do without...

In late March, you might recall, Denny Rehberg announced in the press that he was “swearing off earmarks.” AP Reporter Matt Gouras presented the matter quite fairly. It was major news. Rehberg then set out on a campaign to remind voters that he does not believe in earmarks, or wasteful pork barrel spending generally.

It turns that two weeks after Rehberg got on the wagon and gave up earmarks, another news item quietly broke (or, at least, it was quiet in Montana). It was that the conservative group Citizens Against Government Waste had come out with its annual “Pig Book”, which ranks members of Congress based on how wasteful they are with taxpayer money, based on the number of earmarks they write.

And who do you think the Pig Book ranked as Number One Pig in Congress? You got it, Denny Rehberg, with the most earmarks ( 88 ) for fiscal year 2010 in the entire House of Representatives.


It went unreported by the Montana press and, I might add, unnoticed by all of Rehberg’s Democratic opponents and the entire universe of Democratic staffers, operatives and politicians in Montana who all should be seeing to it that Rehberg is held responsible for the incredible amount of bullshit that he delivers.

Hypocrit- its hard telling.. You may be right--If there is a buck to be made- Denny will tell you anything...
But he won't hold hearings with the locals about turning all the control of public land for 100 miles south of the Canadian border over to Homeland Security...
When it comes to Congressman Dennis Rehberg's federal land grab bill--this says it all...

533379_10150971387394207_1120106476_n.jpg
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
OT, are your polls anything like they published 2 days before the Wisc. election? :lol: :lol:


Still haven't figured out yet that the liberally biased media and polling outfitts are lying to you, eh?
 

Latest posts

Top