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

Republicans stampede, many trampled!!!!

littlejoe

Well-known member
Well----it hadda happen---somebody said 'Boo!' to a republican

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, resumed the offensive, calling Bundy a “hateful racist” in a statement released on Thursday and urging Republican leaders to distance themselves from him.

“For their part, national Republican leaders could help show a united front against this kind of hateful, dangerous extremism by publicly condemning Bundy,” Reid said in the statement.

A number of Republican officials, including Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, have begun doing exactly that, the Washington Post reports.

“I wholeheartedly disagree with him,” Paul said in a statement, calling Bundy’s remarks “offensive.”

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus also condemned the comments, saying, "Bundy's comments are completely beyond the pale. Both highly offensive and 100% wrong on race."

A spokesman for Republican Nevada Sen. Dean Heller echoed Paul’s comments, saying, “Sen. Heller completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way


Be inneresting to see the spin the resident gasbags put on this one
 

flounder

Well-known member
Mike said:
There is no spin. Some agree with what Bundy said, some don't.


poor mikey, he has lost his racist cowboy welfare hero :lol:

don't feel too bad mikey, others are running from bundy too, even your ********* political friends can't run from him fast enough :lol2:




The Republicans who withheld their support for Cliven Bundy were rewarded on Thursday morning when The New York Times' Adam Nagourney reported the Nevada rancher is a grade-A, pro-slavery racist. The ones who took the Bundy bait are changing their stories.

As Nagourney describes it, Bundy is enjoying his newfound fame by sharing his views on a number of policy issues, including race, welfare and whether the "Negro" hasn't been hurt by emancipation. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton," Bundy said. "And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.” Last week, Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center argued that the Bundy militia's philosophy descends from "racist, anti-Semitic violent groups."

Several Republicans have avoided talking about Bundy, as have major political groups. As Politico noted last week, even the Tea Party Patriots didn't comment on the situation. But a few conservatives couldn't resist the opportunity of throwing their lot in with a budding anti-government movement to further their own political careers. Here's what they said when Bundy was just a renegade cowboy, and what they're saying now.

U.S. Sen. Dean Heller

What he said then: Last week, during a debate with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Heller said that he thought the Bundy ranchers were patriots. “What Sen. Reid may call domestic terrorists, I call patriots,” Heller said. He added that he wanted hearings to figure out "who's accountable for this."

What he's saying now: Chandler Smith, a spokesman for Heller, said the congressman “completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way.”

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott

What he said then: Abbott didn't come out in defense of Bundy so much as his ideas — he used the media attention surrounding the Bundy stand off to highlight federal land claims in his home state. "I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations," Abbott wrote in a letter to the BLM this week. The letter echoed Bundy's language, as he argued his family has also owned the land for generations.

What he's saying now: Laura Bean, Abbott's spokeswoman, told the Times that the letter “was regarding a dispute in Texas and is in no way related to the dispute in Nevada.”

Nevada State Assemblywoman Michele Fiore

What she said then: Nevada's Democrats were quick to call out all the local Republicans who supported Bundy, including Cresent Hardy, Niger Innis, Adam Laxalt and Michele Fiore.

Fiore spoke with both Sean Hannity on Fox News and Chris Hayes on MSNBC to argue the Bundy cause. Hayes spoke with Fiore over video, as she was attending the Bundy ranch barbecue. She stopped short of saying that she agreed with Bundy in not recognizing the authority of the federal government, but questioned the heavy handedness of the BLM. "I'm not saying I agree with Cliven Bundy, what I'm saying is, the way this was handled was really suspicious." Fiore doesn't believe Bundy owes the government $1 million in unpaid grazing fees — it's probably closer to a couple hundred thousand.

Fiore has also argued that the cows retrieved from the BLM were poorly treated:

What she's saying now: Fiore hasn't commented publicly on Bundy's statements yet. The Wire reached out to her for a comment, and we'll update if she responds.

(Update 1:43 pm: In a statement, Fiore said Bundy "has said things I don’t agree with," but "we cannot let this divert our attention from the true issue of the atrocities BLM committed by harming our public land and the animals living on it.")

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul

What he said then: Like Abbott, Paul focused more on the policy issue. "There is a legitimate constitutional question here about whether the state should be in charge of endangered species or whether the federal government should be," Paul told Fox News earlier this week. "But I don't think name calling is going to calm this down," he added, referring to Reid's "domestic terrorists" remark.

What he's saying now: Nothing. Paul's team said he was unavailable for comment. (Update 9:55 am: “His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him,” Paul said in a statement.)

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz

What he said then: On Tuesday, Ted Cruz called the Bundy standoff the "the unfortunate and tragic culmination of the path that President Obama has set the federal government on.” He added that the reason he believed the story was "resonating" was that the Obama administration has put American liberty "under assault...we have seen our constitutional liberties eroded under the Obama administration."

What he's saying now: In an email to Mediaite, Cruz's Press Secretary Catherine Frazier said of Bundy's remarks, "Those comments are completely unacceptable.”

Texas Governor Rick Perry

What he said then: On Wednesday, Perry gave a mild defense of the broader issues driving the Bundy standoff: "I have a problem with the federal government putting citizens in the position of having to feel like they have to use force to deal with their own government," he told Fox News.

What he's saying now: Perry declined to denounce Bundy's remarks, as Talking Points Memo spotted on Thursday. In response to a question from CBS This Morning on the remarks, Perry said, "I don't know what he said, but the fact is Clyde (sic) Bundy is a side issue here compared to what we're looking at in the state of Texas. He is an individual. Deal with his issues as you may. "

2012 Presidential Hopeful Herman Cain

What he said then: Cain sympathized with Bundy, because the government was trying to intimidate him. "The complicated nature of the law is a huge problem here, as it is when we deal with things like tax law," Cain wrote on his website last week. "That’s why I have sympathy for Mr. Bundy. His issue with the BLM reminds me of one I had 20 years ago with the IRS."

What he's saying now: Nothing.


http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/04/a-list-of-cliven-bundys-supporters-now-that-we-know-hes-a-pro-slavery-racist/361154/



(Update 1:43 pm: In a statement, Fiore said Bundy "has said things I don’t agree with," but "we cannot let this divert our attention from the true issue of the atrocities BLM committed by harming our public land and the animals living on it.")


by all means, let's not forget bundy is a cowboy welfare queen in a cowboy hat...
 

flounder

Well-known member
I didn't know that there were so many welfare ranchers out there. ...


Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West


Publication Date: August 1, 2002 | ISBN-10: 1559639423 | ISBN-13: 978-1559639422 | Edition: 1


Welfare Ranching reveals the deplorable practices that are ripping apart the ecological fabric of the arid West, where subsidized livestock grazing occurs on more than 300 million acres of publicly owned land. The book offers a graphic look at the consequences of using taxpayer dollars to turn the West into a giant feedlot for cattle and sheep - the slaughter of predators, a growing number of endangered species, polluted rivers and streams, an increase in soil erosion, and weed invasion, to name just a few. Through dramatic photographs and scientifically supported essays, the book shows that wherever cattle are grazing at the public trough, severe and sometimes irreversible ecological damage results. Fauna of all kinds are extirpated, endangered, or driven to extinction; riparian zones are trammeled and degraded; introductions of exotic grasses and foiled mitigation attempts abound. For years the true impacts of livestock grazing have gone unnoticed as the landscape has been altered slowly over time, making the changes difficult to discern. With more than 150 powerful photographs, Welfare Ranching vividly illustrates the difference between lands appropriated for livestock production and the spectacular deserts, grasslands and forests that have been protected from its shattering effects. Essays by leading scientists, historians, and economic and policy experts - including Edward Abbey, Joy Belsky, Carl Bock, John Carter, Thomas Fleischner, Terrence Frest, and T.H. Watkins - document the many costs of ranching on public lands. Welfare Ranching is testimony to an environmental tragedy but it is also an expression of hope that America's heritage of wild and vibrant western landscapes will be restored and renewed. It offers a clear path toward healing mpre than a century of reckless ranching in the arid West - towards a new West with a healthy and living landscape, the revival of extirpated species, and beautiful testimony to true human values.


http://www.amazon.com/Welfare-Ranching-Subsidized-Destruction-American/dp/1559639423
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Ok Oldtimer, little Ot and kolanuraven do you agree with Founder? Most of these ranchers would like to buy the federal land and pay taxes on it to get the government out of their hair. Most of the improvements done on public land are done by the leasee and then you put up with the hunters shooting your cows, leaving gates open and etc. :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ranch hand said:
Ok Oldtimer, little Ot and kolanuraven do you agree with Founder? Most of these ranchers would like to buy the federal land and pay taxes on it to get the government out of their hair. Most of the improvements done on public land are done by the leasee and then you put up with the hunters shooting your cows, leaving gates open and etc. :mad:

You have to remember- this is "public" land- that means owned by everyone and those hunters and recreationists have a right to use it too..They're taxes help pay for the improvements and services BLM/Forest Service makes on the public land...And that includes the law enforcement that patrols this public land looking for those type of the public that are bad neighbor/land sharers...

My other fear is that the ranchers don't have the money to compete with the international wildlife funds/green money/bunny hugger money-- and the land will be totally taken out of livestock... That is what is happening locally- with these groups paying whores prices for these ranch's (that their neighbors can't match the bid on as economical for cattle raising) and in doing so getting all the grass rights that go with it... So those now having allotments could be SOL....

Here is a left wing answer to a Tea Party's candidate that wants to pass a State law having Montana take over all federal lands... Its really making the circles on the PLWA (Public Lands/Water Assn.) and hunting, outdoorsmen, and recreationist/tourist sites...

I'm not that worried about the Rosendale plot to have the state take over public lands controlled by the Feds since they took it from the Indians after the Louisiana Purchase- because I think it is unconstitutional...

BUT that said- I think Bundy has brought to light this grazing allotment setup to a lot of people that never knew it existed- made ranchers using it out to be "subsidized"- or "welfare queens"- and will end up with a lot stronger push to change the system... Those with current allotments may end up SOL because of Bundy's publicizing the abuses of the system...


Posted: April 22, 2014 at 7:00 pm

TEA Party Land Takeover Will Cost You Big $$$


TEA Party congressional candidate Matt Rosendale and a militia-affiliated TEA Partier state senator have glommed onto a likely unconstitutional land grab idea pushed by out-of-staters that is a financial black hole for Montanans and a nightmare for Montana’s economy and environment.

Here’s why the plot copied from Utah by Jennifer Fielder, the TEA Party state senator who is vice-Chair of the Montana GOP, and Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Yosemite Sam) is so poorly conceived and is more about pushing state sovereignty anti-government uprising ideology. It’s certainly not about jobs or fiscal responsibility.

Our federal public lands are what make Montana so great. The TEA Party land grab targets the Rocky Mountain Front, the Bob Marshall Wilderness, the Beartooths, the Bitterroot-Selway, the national forests and scenic areas surrounding our national parks including Going to the Sun Road, and all of our national wildlife refuges and wilderness areas. These are the places where we go to ride horses, hike, hunt, fish, ski, bike or just relax outside with our pets, friends and families. These public lands don’t belong only to the 2015 Montana legislature and the special interests who would sell them off– they belong to all Americans for generations to come. Rosendale and Fielder say they will exempt National parks, reservations , and national monuments, but not the lands mentioned above.

Perhaps most obviously, the TEA Party land grab would limit public access to public lands. If this TEA Party and grab succeeds many of these lands could be sold or developed, strip mined, strip malls. Whatever. Montanans can expect to encounter a whole lot of “No Trespassing” signs.

What’s more, the Fielder/Rosendale attack on our public lands could cost also Montana taxpayers untold millions of dollars. Consider what’s happening in Utah, the state which recently passed the dubious law which the MT TEA-bunch is modeling their land grab scheme after. The Utah legislature’s own lawyers have said that the land grab bill will only trigger a costly and ultimately futile legal battle because it has a “high probability of being declared unconstitutional.” The litigation costs to taxpayers will likely run into the millions of dollars.

And that’s just the litigation to defend this unconstitutional nonsense. That’s not even including the cost to manage the federal lands, which Montana taxpayers would now have to assume.

In Utah, the federal government spends between $200 and $300 million per year managing public lands (including fire fighting)–Utah has about 35 million acres of federal land.

In Idaho, the federal government spends more than $300 million per year in managing public lands–Idaho has about 33 million acres of federal land. These numbers also include the costs of fighting wildland fires.

If you’re wondering what the federal management costs in Montana are, consider that we have about 27 million acres of federal lands.

Compare that with the fact that the state of Montana can barely manage to fully fund its own state parks budget because legislators refuse to appropriate the needed funds. The state of Montana spends a measly $600,000 in state funds to manage our state parks. That means that’s the only state money the legislature would allocate to manage our state parks public lands–that doesn’t come from hunting and fishing licenses or federal funds anyway. If Montana did gain control over federal public lands, Montana taxpayers would be stuck with the cost of managing federal lands too–to the tune of a couple hundred million.

Some right-wingers may say “well let’s just clearcut log federal land to pay these costs.” In fact, the Idaho Department of Lands came up with an estimate that the state could raise $50 million to $75 million annually in timber receipts from federal land.

But one cost not figured into Idaho’s estimate would actually negate any anticipated revenue gains. That’s what are called “Payment in Lieu of Taxes” or PILT funds. These payments make up for former timber revenues and compensating for the fact that counties can’t tax federal land–they amount to $58 million in Idaho. If the lands weren’t federal, local governments would lose those funds. The situation is the same in Montana–and other states. (Also, earth to the pro-logging crowd It’s not environmental protections that dictate how much logging is done –its demand for timber in the free market economy.)

That’s why TEA Party Republican Jan Brewer, who is Arizona’s Governor vetoed a land grab bill in her state because it would have overstressed the state’s budget and land management abilities. As the Salt Lake Tribune commented,


“[t]hat’s a much more logical view than the pipe dream held by Utah lawmakers, that the seizure of public lands would be a fiscal bonanza for the state.”

The Rosendale/Feilder TEA Party assault on our public lands is also bad for business. Nearly eleven million visitors come to Montana each year, spending $3.7 billion dollars and supporting 13,000 jobs–largely to enjoy our public lands. Just as important, our public lands are the single greatest reason why many people and businesses chose to locate and invest in Montana. An increasing number of studies show that rural counties in the West with protected public landscapes see better economic and job growth than counties lacking protected landscapes. To the contrary, Feilder’s and Rosendale’s TEA Party agenda is to sell off and exploit – not protect and promote – our great places to fish, hunt, and recreate.

The Rosendale/Fielder plan will create enormous regulatory quagmire for grazing, drilling, and mining interests who now hold or are seeking permits and leases on our federally-managed public lands. This uncertainty will deter, not encourage, appropriate mineral, agriculture and energy development. No business wants to come here and embroil itself in endless morass of risks and unknowns. This seems like an obvious point, but the TEA Partiers don’t seem to get it.

Finally, Fielder and Rosendale claim this is about “returning” federal lands to the state – the state never owned these lands in the first place, the federal government took them from Native Americans. So if they are to be “returned” to anyone, it should be the tribes.

After all, just because an idea is ludicrous never stopped imbeciles in the TEA Party from forcing Republicans to swear oaths to support it. Check out this TEA Party video of a GOP primary candidate forum co-hosted by the Flathead County Republican Women and the NW MT TEA Party Patriots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7uxpHc1sNs
The TEA Partiers asked only three questions.

Would the candidates support denying tribal sovereignty and water rights to the First Montanans? (By blocking this, Republicans are costing the state of Montana yet more untold millions in legal fees through years of litigation.)

Would they reject federal funds to pay for 100% of the health care costs for 70,000 working poor and Veterans in Montana? Montana loses $1.8 million every day that these funds are refused.

And would they support this unconstitutional TEA Party land grab to tank Montana’s economy, which would also cost the state millions.

The candidates answered as the forum organizers demanded – even though the TEA partiers’ ideological positions are the opposite of fiscally responsible.
 

Mike

Well-known member
So, if the individual states can't afford to manage the public lands financially and the Feds can, that means those states are getting money from the other states that don't have public lands.


WE are really the ones paying for management.

More reason for me to want it sold off.

Good try Oldtimer (not really) He tells us that he doesn't want a state takeover, but doesn't really tell us why.... except the states can't afford to manage it. :roll:

We should have expected nothing less than an obviously biased leftwing cult perception for you to fall for.
 

littlejoe

Well-known member
Personally, I think it's underpriced. And I've made that point to people using blm---that I think the average person would consider it underpriced and that that could come back to bite 'em.

A mineral claim is commonly 1500' x 600'---for a lode. A 'placier' can follow the deposit, but is about the same size. A claim---unless you're a small prospector, actually doing the assessment work every yr--with less than 10 claims--will cost a co right at $200 for a yr. In the stuff we staked, I doubt one claim would equal 1 aum. Do the math, per acre income--on that one. I know----but gotta have some perception of fairness in comparison to private market.

Look at the crp program----it's stayed around for yrs and it ain't because of farmers. The wildlife folks want it.

Grass evolved under grazing. I make this point to outdoors people and anybody else that I can show. I'm currently grazing crp, it's predominantly bunch grass, hasn't been grazed for 3 yrs. A terrific example of large, thinly populated wolfy plants---with 2/3 or more of crown dead.

I sympathize with bundy---but he ain't the right guy to push this with. A few yrs ago, the wall st journal had a big article on getting cows off of blm----this is a very pro business paper and they look at us as business and were very much on our side----they had documented research done on ranchers mortgages, liens, ages etc---and the fact that some folks, those least able to defend themselves---were being deliberately targeted.

most of the people are outa touch with ag----most contributors to sierra club, etc, are generous people who think they're doing something good---it's gonna take a lot of finesse, education and work to ----sorry, my trucks are here, gotta dash....
 

flounder

Well-known member
The Kochs’ AFP starts scrubbing its Bundy support

04/25/14 02:49 PM—Updated 04/25/14 02:54 PM


By Steve Benen



It was just two weeks ago that affiliates of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political operation financed by Charles and David Koch, decided to extend support to Cliven Bundy. Despite the Nevada rancher’s defiance of the law and court orders, and despite the fact that he denied the legitimacy of the United States government, AFP helped promote Bundy’s cause and mock the Bureau of Land Management for trying to enforce federal law.



Then Bundy started speculating about whether African Americans were “better off as slaves,” at which point the AFP apparently decided to join the stampede away from the radical Nevadan.


Americans for Prosperity Nevada, the state affiliate of the Koch Brothers-backed group, appears to have hastily deleted social media posts expressing support for Cliven Bundy, the renegade rancher who exposed himself as a racist in recent press conferences.



A tweet sent by AFP Nevada on April 10 urging followers to read more about the #BundyBattle, which involves Bundy’s refusal to pay fines for allowing his cattle to graze on public land, has been deleted. A Facebook graphic that the group posted criticizing the Bureau of Land Management for enforcing grazing laws against Bundy has similarly disappeared.

The instinct to run away is understandable, and it’s hard to blame AFP officials for waking up yesterday and wondering what in the world they’d gotten themselves into.



But the scrubbing is of limited utility given that screen-grabs and caches exist. Media Matters, for example, still has the content online that AFP is trying to take offline.



And all of this only serves to reinforce the question: what was the right thinking?


If you missed last night’s A block, it’s worth your time.


“[L]et us all pray that it is out of ignorance that the National Review comparing him to Gandhi and the right-wing activists comparing him to Rosa Parks, and the Fox News channel booking him and his family over and over and over and over and over again as heroes, and the Republican senator calling his armed supporters pointing guns at federal law enforcement officers ‘patriots’ – let us pray that that was happening under a veil of ignorance. Let us pray that they had no idea that there is a long-standing fairly violent right-wing movement in this country that is born in the defense of slavery and that causes people to say weird stuff about sheriffs being the supreme authority and the federal government not existing.



“Let us pray that the right and these Republican senators made a hero out of this guy in bloody ignorance of where he was really coming from.



“But it is a choice as to whether or not you do your homework before you try to mainstream a guy like this. The turn today to ‘let me tell you another thing I know about the Negro,’ that was telegraphed way, way, way in advance here. Anybody who chose not to see it coming now has this mess all over themselves.”


And as of today, the AFP’s solution is to clean up this mess by pretending it never said what it very clearly said.



As for Bundy, he apparently keeps talking, and is now attempting to invoke the legacies of both Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks in his defense.



The far-right movement really knows how to pick ‘em.



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-kochs-afp-starts-scrubbing-its-bundy
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
You have to remember- this is "public" land- that means owned by everyone and those hunters and recreationists have a right to use it too..They're taxes help pay for the improvements and services BLM/Forest Service makes on the public land...And that includes the law enforcement that patrols this public land looking for those type of the public that are bad neighbor/land sharers...

Don't a Rancher's taxes also pay for the management by BLM/Forest Service, just like the recreationists?

Why no fee, for those on quads, the same as the Rancher?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
You have to remember- this is "public" land- that means owned by everyone and those hunters and recreationists have a right to use it too..They're taxes help pay for the improvements and services BLM/Forest Service makes on the public land...And that includes the law enforcement that patrols this public land looking for those type of the public that are bad neighbor/land sharers...

Don't a Rancher's taxes also pay for the management by BLM/Forest Service, just like the recreationists?

Why no fee, for those on quads, the same as the Rancher?

There are fees for them too- campground fees, group fees, special recreation and boating fees... That reminds me- I need to get my off road sticker on my new Quad...Altho I paid $50 for street legal registration- I had to pay $60 for off road registration- altho I'm not sure if the state keeps all that fee or some goes to the feds..
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
You have to remember- this is "public" land- that means owned by everyone and those hunters and recreationists have a right to use it too..They're taxes help pay for the improvements and services BLM/Forest Service makes on the public land...And that includes the law enforcement that patrols this public land looking for those type of the public that are bad neighbor/land sharers...


Ot....I have never seen a BLM person on the second on this place. They have done no improvements to it in any way. I drove by the BLM ranch in SE Montana SE of Miles City going to a bull sale in Wyoming the other day. Last year when I drove by it they were burning fields (the area ranchers say they won't allow grazing) They were unloading fencing material, drove by this year and no fence done. I asked someone about it and they said they loaded it up and left.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The Republicans who withheld their support for Cliven Bundy were rewarded

yep and that is usually the intent, with race baiting, to silence the opposition, either "this time", or next, from supporting a person, taxpayer etc, that has a difference of opinion, with a Democratic Government.

Alinsky, remember him? It's too bad that we see some Conservatives, here on Ranchers now using the same tactic.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ranch hand said:
You have to remember- this is "public" land- that means owned by everyone and those hunters and recreationists have a right to use it too..They're taxes help pay for the improvements and services BLM/Forest Service makes on the public land...And that includes the law enforcement that patrols this public land looking for those type of the public that are bad neighbor/land sharers...


Ot....I have never seen a BLM person on the second on this place. They have done no improvements to it in any way. I drove by the BLM ranch in SE Montana SE of Miles City going to a bull sale in Wyoming the other day. Last year when I drove by it they were burning fields (the area ranchers say they won't allow grazing) They were unloading fencing material, drove by this year and no fence done. I asked someone about it and they said they loaded it up and left.

Your're in the wrong district then...I've seen them building roads and stock dams, burning out areas of sage- and trying to rip up/burn out areas that won't absorb moisture... You can go all over and see their little chicken wire fenced off areas studying pasture/moisture conditions... I can show you numerous areas where they built dikes in drainages to hold the water and try to reclaim overgrazed areas to grass.... I used to see them most during dry years when they would station fire units in the area to battle fires in the breaks... Normally their fire units are dispatched out of Lewistown for up here- but some summers they'd leave units/crews up here...

I see our local BLM Ranger quite often... Besides helping take out our hospital EMT shooter/murderer a couple of years back- she responded to and helped me get our cattle out of the water and moved to high ground when a flash flood hit a couple of years back....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
ranch hand said:
You have to remember- this is "public" land- that means owned by everyone and those hunters and recreationists have a right to use it too..They're taxes help pay for the improvements and services BLM/Forest Service makes on the public land...And that includes the law enforcement that patrols this public land looking for those type of the public that are bad neighbor/land sharers...


Ot....I have never seen a BLM person on the second on this place. They have done no improvements to it in any way. I drove by the BLM ranch in SE Montana SE of Miles City going to a bull sale in Wyoming the other day. Last year when I drove by it they were burning fields (the area ranchers say they won't allow grazing) They were unloading fencing material, drove by this year and no fence done. I asked someone about it and they said they loaded it up and left.

Your're in the wrong district then...I've seen them building roads and stock dams, burning out areas of sage- and trying to rip up/burn out areas that won't absorb moisture... You can go all over and see their little chicken wire fenced off areas studying pasture/moisture conditions... I can show you numerous areas where they built dikes in drainages to hold the water and try to reclaim overgrazed areas to grass.... I used to see them most during dry years when they would station fire units in the area to battle fires in the breaks... Normally their fire units are dispatched out of Lewistown for up here- but some summers they'd leave units/crews up here...

I see our local BLM Ranger quite often... Besides helping take out our hospital EMT shooter/murderer a couple of years back- she responded to and helped me get our cattle out of the water and moved to high ground when a flash flood hit a couple of years back....

WhoopyPhuckin'Do! :roll:

I called a Ranger back in Jan. on a Saturday morning when I caught a poacher shooting deer illegally on some Army Corps land.

He told me to get the poachers drivers & hunting license and he would swing by on Monday to get them because he couldn't work more than 40 hours per week because he wouldn't get paid for it. :lol:

Aren't you mature enough to know that you have no credibility? :roll:
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Our BLM fire fighters sit on a hill and watch the ranchers fight it. Then when it is about out they come set back fires and burn more grass. They stop fighting when it gets dark.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Is that the same BLM ranger that protected you wife while you hid behind the skirts of the local bar flyes?? By your own admission you had the surround you because you had your rubber band gun on your hip?????

:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
ranch hand said:
[/b]

Ot....I have never seen a BLM person on the second on this place. They have done no improvements to it in any way. I drove by the BLM ranch in SE Montana SE of Miles City going to a bull sale in Wyoming the other day. Last year when I drove by it they were burning fields (the area ranchers say they won't allow grazing) They were unloading fencing material, drove by this year and no fence done. I asked someone about it and they said they loaded it up and left.

Your're in the wrong district then...I've seen them building roads and stock dams, burning out areas of sage- and trying to rip up/burn out areas that won't absorb moisture... You can go all over and see their little chicken wire fenced off areas studying pasture/moisture conditions... I can show you numerous areas where they built dikes in drainages to hold the water and try to reclaim overgrazed areas to grass.... I used to see them most during dry years when they would station fire units in the area to battle fires in the breaks... Normally their fire units are dispatched out of Lewistown for up here- but some summers they'd leave units/crews up here...

I see our local BLM Ranger quite often... Besides helping take out our hospital EMT shooter/murderer a couple of years back- she responded to and helped me get our cattle out of the water and moved to high ground when a flash flood hit a couple of years back....

WhoopyPhuckin'Do! :roll:

I called a Ranger back in Jan. on a Saturday morning when I caught a poacher shooting deer illegally on some Army Corps land.

He told me to get the poachers drivers & hunting license and he would swing by on Monday to get them because he couldn't work more than 40 hours per week because he wouldn't get paid for it. :lol:

Aren't you mature enough to know that you have no credibility? :roll:
Are we supposed to follow Buckwheat's lead and pronounce it "corpse"?
 
Top