New wildlife refuge?

[Horseless]

I can't believe nobody is talking about this on Ranchers.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/12/2426790/new-wildlife-refuge-set-in-flint.html

I know there are ranchers on here that must live in or near this.

 

[gcreekrch]

This might just be a place to keep Jigs safe from society, or maybe vice-versa.

 

[jigs]

one of the most beautiful places in Kansas, the historic Z Bar Ranch is now the Tall Grass Prairie Reserve. they run those stupid damned buffalo on it and are trying to ruin the place. the headquarters for the ranch is an 1800's facility, and made of native stone. if you ever are in central Kansas and want to see an utterly amazing landscape, I highly reccomend visiting the Z Bar.

these nature people are going to be our largest enemies before it is all said and done. if it get bad enough, I may have to move up to GCreek and be his bunk buddy.... gonna pour me a shot of whiskey, and hope I die before that day arrives!

 

[loomixguy]

I hope gcreek sleeps with his back to the wall if that's the case!

 

[jodywy]

would feel better if these guys held the trust http://www.ranchlandtrustofkansas.org/ rather then some government entity

 

[jingo2]

to move up to GCreek and be his bunk buddy....!

I knew it....

 

[Larrry]

Ain't it great that the money just grows on trees for the government

 

[Anonymous]

would feel better if these guys held the trust http://www.ranchlandtrustofkansas.org/ rather then some government entity

I don't want to start a fight or argument--and this is an issue Horseless and I have discussed before and he knows quite well-- First off I'm totally against the government obtaining more land--- BUT all I have to say is--- folks look hard and deep at some of these trusts and conservation easements (which include big money) -- and why the "Greenie-Weenies" don't oppose them....

They know that with all the restrictions put on the land thru the easements and trusts (minerals, water, wildlife, hunting, public access, no development of whatever unless it already fits into the easement, etc., etc.) and they know that this long term lowers the value of the land or any money a true business financier will put up- and know that every family/corporate operation for whatever reasons (family illness, family fights, deaths, DIVORCES, economics and bad investments, a rodeo queen daughter , whatever) eventually comes up for sale --- and they(the greeny-weenies) know that when it does they can dig up much more money than any banking institution will put up to finance you or me to buy as an operational place with all the restrictions ....

These easements and trusts have been great for some borderline family and corporate operations that were near to going under to get a huge infusion of government and/or green money and keep them going-- but I don't really think they are as great as they have been laid out to be- and think we will pay for it down the line...

 

[Larrry]

would feel better if these guys held the trust http://www.ranchlandtrustofkansas.org/ rather then some government entity

I don't want to start a fight or argument--and this is an issue Horseless and I have discussed before and he knows quite well-- First off I'm totally against the government obtaining more land--- but folks look hard and deep at some of these trusts and conservation easements-- and why the "Greenie-Weenies" don't oppose them....

They know that with all the restrictions put on the land thru the easements and trusts (minerals, water, wildlife, hunting, public access, no development of whatever unless it already fits into the easement, etc., etc.) and they know that this long term lowers the value of the land or any money a true business financier will put up- and know that every family/corporate operation for whatever reasons (family illness, family fights, deaths, DIVORCES, economics and bad investments, a rodeo queen daughter , whatever) eventually comes up for sale --- and they(the greeny-weenies) know that when it does they can dig up much more money than any banking institution will put up to finance you or me to buy as an operational place with all the restrictions ....

These easements and trusts have been great for some borderline family and corporate operations that were near to going under to get a huge infusion of government and/or green money and keep them going-- but I don't really think they are as great as they have been laid out to be- and think we will pay for it down the line...

Yup

 

[Soapweed]

would feel better if these guys held the trust http://www.ranchlandtrustofkansas.org/ rather then some government entity

I don't want to start a fight or argument--and this is an issue Horseless and I have discussed before and he knows quite well-- First off I'm totally against the government obtaining more land--- BUT all I have to say is--- folks look hard and deep at some of these trusts and conservation easements (which include big money) -- and why the "Greenie-Weenies" don't oppose them....

They know that with all the restrictions put on the land thru the easements and trusts (minerals, water, wildlife, hunting, public access, no development of whatever unless it already fits into the easement, etc., etc.) and they know that this long term lowers the value of the land or any money a true business financier will put up- and know that every family/corporate operation for whatever reasons (family illness, family fights, deaths, DIVORCES, economics and bad investments, a rodeo queen daughter , whatever) eventually comes up for sale --- and they(the greeny-weenies) know that when it does they can dig up much more money than any banking institution will put up to finance you or me to buy as an operational place with all the restrictions ....

These easements and trusts have been great for some borderline family and corporate operations that were near to going under to get a huge infusion of government and/or green money and keep them going-- but I don't really think they are as great as they have been laid out to be- and think we will pay for it down the line...

Gee, something must be wrong because for once I agree with Oldtimer. :?

 

[jigs]

would feel better if these guys held the trust http://www.ranchlandtrustofkansas.org/ rather then some government entity

I don't want to start a fight or argument--and this is an issue Horseless and I have discussed before and he knows quite well-- First off I'm totally against the government obtaining more land--- BUT all I have to say is--- folks look hard and deep at some of these trusts and conservation easements (which include big money) -- and why the "Greenie-Weenies" don't oppose them....

They know that with all the restrictions put on the land thru the easements and trusts (minerals, water, wildlife, hunting, public access, no development of whatever unless it already fits into the easement, etc., etc.) and they know that this long term lowers the value of the land or any money a true business financier will put up- and know that every family/corporate operation for whatever reasons (family illness, family fights, deaths, DIVORCES, economics and bad investments, a rodeo queen daughter , whatever) eventually comes up for sale --- and they(the greeny-weenies) know that when it does they can dig up much more money than any banking institution will put up to finance you or me to buy as an operational place with all the restrictions ....

These easements and trusts have been great for some borderline family and corporate operations that were near to going under to get a huge infusion of government and/or green money and keep them going-- but I don't really think they are as great as they have been laid out to be- and think we will pay for it down the line...

Gee, something must be wrong because for once I agree with Oldtimer. :?

well soap, OT is not the brilliant dude you may think he is...after all a stopped clock is right twice a day.

 

[katrina]

would feel better if these guys held the trust http://www.ranchlandtrustofkansas.org/ rather then some government entity

I don't want to start a fight or argument--and this is an issue Horseless and I have discussed before and he knows quite well-- First off I'm totally against the government obtaining more land--- BUT all I have to say is--- folks look hard and deep at some of these trusts and conservation easements (which include big money) -- and why the "Greenie-Weenies" don't oppose them....

They know that with all the restrictions put on the land thru the easements and trusts (minerals, water, wildlife, hunting, public access, no development of whatever unless it already fits into the easement, etc., etc.) and they know that this long term lowers the value of the land or any money a true business financier will put up- and know that every family/corporate operation for whatever reasons (family illness, family fights, deaths, DIVORCES, economics and bad investments, a rodeo queen daughter , whatever) eventually comes up for sale --- and they(the greeny-weenies) know that when it does they can dig up much more money than any banking institution will put up to finance you or me to buy as an operational place with all the restrictions ....

These easements and trusts have been great for some borderline family and corporate operations that were near to going under to get a huge infusion of government and/or green money and keep them going-- but I don't really think they are as great as they have been laid out to be- and think we will pay for it down the line...

Gee, something must be wrong because for once I agree with Oldtimer. :?

:twisted: :twisted: Sandhusker wrote:
Actually, you're right, I don't know the details. But, I do know who is a credible source for information, and it sure as hell isn't the packers or their puppets.


Sandhusker, doesn't it bother you just a little bit to be on the same side of this issue as Oldtimer? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Go ahead and slap me!!! I couldn't resist...... :lol2: :secret:

 

[Soapweed]

I don't want to start a fight or argument--and this is an issue Horseless and I have discussed before and he knows quite well-- First off I'm totally against the government obtaining more land--- BUT all I have to say is--- folks look hard and deep at some of these trusts and conservation easements (which include big money) -- and why the "Greenie-Weenies" don't oppose them....

They know that with all the restrictions put on the land thru the easements and trusts (minerals, water, wildlife, hunting, public access, no development of whatever unless it already fits into the easement, etc., etc.) and they know that this long term lowers the value of the land or any money a true business financier will put up- and know that every family/corporate operation for whatever reasons (family illness, family fights, deaths, DIVORCES, economics and bad investments, a rodeo queen daughter , whatever) eventually comes up for sale --- and they(the greeny-weenies) know that when it does they can dig up much more money than any banking institution will put up to finance you or me to buy as an operational place with all the restrictions ....

These easements and trusts have been great for some borderline family and corporate operations that were near to going under to get a huge infusion of government and/or green money and keep them going-- but I don't really think they are as great as they have been laid out to be- and think we will pay for it down the line...

Gee, something must be wrong because for once I agree with Oldtimer. :?

:twisted: :twisted: Sandhusker wrote:
Actually, you're right, I don't know the details. But, I do know who is a credible source for information, and it sure as hell isn't the packers or their puppets.


Sandhusker, doesn't it bother you just a little bit to be on the same side of this issue as Oldtimer? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Go ahead and slap me!!! I couldn't resist...... :lol2: :secret:

Oh, the irony of it all.

 

[jodywy]

would just say a sub division, or sale the ranch is gone either way, a boughten easment there money in the pocket , and a ranch till some one wants to sell it.Maybe a young ranch now can as the development value is gone.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

I agree with Jody. If a ranch has a easement sold on it and it is done properly it should be just a "No Break , No drain and a yard development plan. It won't stop energy development any way. Might keep a family ranching and can be used as a succession tool to pass the ranch on to younger generation.

 

[Anonymous]

would just say a sub division, or sale the ranch is gone either way, a boughten easment there money in the pocket , and a ranch till some one wants to sell it.Maybe a young ranch now can as the development value is gone.

Jody- in the right area- where huge populations and subdivisions are encroaching- easements may be the answer --- but up here they are being used in areas where there are 6,000 people in a county bigger than the state of Delaware- and 20 miles from the nearest incorporated town-- and just to get the big bucks being offered-- but the sad thing is that I don't think those folks realize (or there desperation to keep the ranch afloat a few more years) who and what organizations are putting up those big bucks..... Those greeny outfits aren't backing/financing the easements just for no reason-- they KNOW this gives them an inroad into the land when/if it comes up for sale-- and as I said before- with a lot of family operations something always seems to come up that leads to some type of sale/division...

 

[I Luv Herfrds]

Maybe you guys need to go look up american prairie foundation and see what is in OT's back yard.

I've seen the map (which was denied for years) on their plan. It is to stretch from the C M Russel Preserve clear into my own place, Fort Benton.
As far north as Big Sandy and as far south as Lewistown.

 

[jodywy]

would just say a sub division, or sale the ranch is gone either way, a boughten easment there money in the pocket , and a ranch till some one wants to sell it.Maybe a young ranch now can as the development value is gone.

Jody- in the right area- where huge populations and subdivisions are encroaching- easements may be the answer --- but up here they are being used in areas where there are 6,000 people in a county bigger than the state of Delaware- and 20 miles from the nearest incorporated town-- and just to get the big bucks being offered-- but the sad thing is that I don't think those folks realize (or there desperation to keep the ranch afloat a few more years) who and what organizations are putting up those big bucks..... Those greeny outfits aren't backing/financing the easements just for no reason-- they KNOW this gives them an inroad into the land when/if it comes up for sale-- and as I said before- with a lot of family operations something always seems to come up that leads to some type of sale/division...

big country is not totally immune from subdivision. In Wyoming and some other western states you have some big ranches in the middle of nowhere are being sold in 40 to 120 acre tracts on a restate contract. A lot of the lots get resold when people actually see what they bought and quit paying. Others get a road bladed in and try o camp out in a trailer.
Know a young man that traded up from one small place to a bigger one till he had a every good sized place, a game warden told him he would buy a 640. The young man found he could sell a few 640s and pay off the ranch. Instead he had a purchased easement and paid off the mortgage and kept the ranch whole.
An easement is not for every one but it can be a tool for some, yes! Most of those in the mountains, rock, trees or water

 

[Ben H]

Hey Hypo, can you connect this to Agenda 21?

 

[hypocritexposer]

Hey Hypo, can you connect this to Agenda 21?

Yes...but there are probably many that have not heard about Agenda 21. Here's a little bit of info. and how it might be connected.


Other than RI, I think Kansas has the least amount of Federal land. The goal is to get this number up, to help with the overall goal of 50% of all US land to be under Federal Control.

It makes perfect sense when the objectives of the UN's Agenda 21 are understood, as Agenda 21 is the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control from the international level all the way down to the individual level, using the environment as the excuse. Most people are unaware that one of Agenda 21 Sustainable Development's goals is to make 50% of America into 'Wildlands' that are off-limits to humans and to herd people into 'Smart Growth' cities. Almost all wealth is derived from land and its resources. The more land the federal government owns, the more control they have. Less than 6% of America is considered developed (with roads and buildings) but the federal government is devoted to reducing these developed areas.(2)

Green Global Dictatorship: Regional Governance, UN Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, and the Wildlands Project

Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, Professor of Geography


Under UN directives, Regional Governance has advanced significantly in the U.S. and worldwide. Today, it is inextricably bound up with a host of benign, even appealing-sounding phrases such as Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, the Wildlands Project, etc. But what are these programs in reality and how did they get here?


In 1976, with the consent of both our corrupt political parties, the U.S. adopted these recommendations from the first United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I):

1) a national policy on population distribution according to available resources.

2) public land control or ownership in the public interest with equitable distribution of benefits while assuring environmental impacts.

3) Land, a scarce resource, should be subject to public surveillance or control for the common interest.

4) Government must exercise full jurisdiction over land and freely plan the development of human settlements.


Population distribution?!!! Land subject to public control?!!! Government has full jurisdiction over land and plans development of human settlements?!!! This sounds more like the Soviet Union than the America of the U.S. Constitution. Read on.


http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/united_nations/news.php?q=1259955479

Watch this short video introduction about the Wildlands Project by Dr. Michael Coffman:

Wildlands Project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVTGK1uYqJo&feature=player_embedded

(It shows a map of the US and the areas to be closed to human activity in the years to come.)

This screenshot of a map from another site and gets into regional specifics. Lots of info. here:

http://www.takingliberty.us/TLByRegion.html

Taking Liberty is a comprehensive look at the lower 48 states showing, region by region, how the Environmental Movement is rapidly abolishing Private Property in America.

U.S. Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) addressed Congress on July 15th to report the Natural Resources Committee's passage of HR 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources Act (CLEAR Act) of 2009. Congressman Gohmert said that the bill was to "deal with the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico" but it contains plans for the federal government to acquire land and was introduced in 2009.


snip

He went on to say that when the federal government acquires land, it makes promises to generate revenue but then fails to utilize the resources; an example is timber, as logging is prohibited in most federal lands. Mr. Gohmert then showed a graph of how much money the federal government has spent to acquire more land over the last few years:

2008 $100 million

2009 $150 million

2010 $300 million

Gohmert was incredulous that the federal government intends to raise its purchasing allocations to $900 million a year for the next 30 years and questioned "how in the world does that make sense"?


http://farmwars.info/?p=3394