Frankk
Well-known member
Good questions, can we get an answer.Southdakotahunter said:
Want a chuckle? Check out Tony Dean today.
- Thread starter Liberty Belle
- Start date
Southdakotahunter
Well-known member
Im guessing you dont know what a socialist is do ya LB....you sure wont tell me anyway, because that would show hypocricy wouldnt it?
kolanuraven
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 10,917
LB: You sound as if you're constantly hip deep in predators?
Yeah ,yrs ago when we had cattle on a ranch near Camp Crook we had a few problems with varmints but nothing to the degree that you keep referring to in your posts.
I know YOU practice predator control.....but what is going on that seems to " draw" them to you? I was just wondering and comparing to my own experiences in your part of the world
Yeah ,yrs ago when we had cattle on a ranch near Camp Crook we had a few problems with varmints but nothing to the degree that you keep referring to in your posts.
I know YOU practice predator control.....but what is going on that seems to " draw" them to you? I was just wondering and comparing to my own experiences in your part of the world
HMW is correct.
Here is a site to look at. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/01.html#1
Among other things you will find the following, with the changes that followed that. The first part that I included, most are familiar with, its what follows that explains HMW's point.
Madison's introduced version provided ''The rights to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.'' 8 As reported from committee, with an inadvertent omission corrected on the floor, 9 the section was almost identical to the introduced version, and the House defeated a motion to substitute ''and no warrant shall issue'' for ''by warrants issuing'' in the committee draft. In some fashion, the rejected amendment was inserted in the language before passage by the House and is the language of the ratified constitutional provision. 10
''The premise that property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize has been discredited. . . . We have recognized that the principal object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of privacy rather than property, and have increasingly discarded fictional and procedural barriers rested on property concepts.'' 34 Thus, because the Amendment ''protects people, not places,'' the requirement of actual physical trespass is dispensed with and electronic surveillance was made subject to the Amendment's requirements. 35
It is surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior.'' 69 Certain administrative inspections utilized to enforce regulatory schemes with regard to such items as alcohol and firearms are, however, exempt from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement and may be authorized simply by statute. 70
Here is a site to look at. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/01.html#1
Among other things you will find the following, with the changes that followed that. The first part that I included, most are familiar with, its what follows that explains HMW's point.
Madison's introduced version provided ''The rights to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.'' 8 As reported from committee, with an inadvertent omission corrected on the floor, 9 the section was almost identical to the introduced version, and the House defeated a motion to substitute ''and no warrant shall issue'' for ''by warrants issuing'' in the committee draft. In some fashion, the rejected amendment was inserted in the language before passage by the House and is the language of the ratified constitutional provision. 10
''The premise that property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize has been discredited. . . . We have recognized that the principal object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of privacy rather than property, and have increasingly discarded fictional and procedural barriers rested on property concepts.'' 34 Thus, because the Amendment ''protects people, not places,'' the requirement of actual physical trespass is dispensed with and electronic surveillance was made subject to the Amendment's requirements. 35
It is surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior.'' 69 Certain administrative inspections utilized to enforce regulatory schemes with regard to such items as alcohol and firearms are, however, exempt from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement and may be authorized simply by statute. 70
Southdakotahunter
Well-known member
wow.....i am not gonna sit here and say i understood all you just said, but i did understand some of it.....and i would bet LB wont have much to say on that!
If you look at her last bunch of posts, about 9 of 10 are about preditors. Your right, makes it seem like they are overrun with them....betting every coyote and mountain lion in the country is sitting in their cattle yard waiting to feast on a calf or lamb or 2, heck, i would bet the county and ranchers could save alot of $ if the preditor pilot would just land the plane and perch himself on top of LB's windmill! I dont think that she would have that many preditors if she wasnt in the LOCKOUT, since hunting is not allowd on lockout land......oh dang, i forgot, coyote hunting is not hunting!
If you look at her last bunch of posts, about 9 of 10 are about preditors. Your right, makes it seem like they are overrun with them....betting every coyote and mountain lion in the country is sitting in their cattle yard waiting to feast on a calf or lamb or 2, heck, i would bet the county and ranchers could save alot of $ if the preditor pilot would just land the plane and perch himself on top of LB's windmill! I dont think that she would have that many preditors if she wasnt in the LOCKOUT, since hunting is not allowd on lockout land......oh dang, i forgot, coyote hunting is not hunting!
greg
Well-known member
Another lockout thread! Just when I thought we were safe!
Frankk
Well-known member
what does that mean?greg said:
theHiredMansWife
Well-known member
It's code between southdakota hunter and Liberty Belle.
It means meet me out behind the school at 3PM sharp. :x
Seriously, if you're interested, click the board's "Search" button up top and type in "lockout". Check out some of the threads about it and you'll get your fill.
It means meet me out behind the school at 3PM sharp. :x
Seriously, if you're interested, click the board's "Search" button up top and type in "lockout". Check out some of the threads about it and you'll get your fill.
Faster horses
Well-known member
You are not a favored person on this site, stevec, or don't you realize that?
Do you ever have a humorous moment? Everything is do or die with you.
Ranchers aren't like that. We face so many challenges that we have learned to laugh. At ourselves, at a situation, at life. That's why we have been able to meet those challenges. You gotta be made of pretty stern stuff. We mostly don't BLAME anyone and your posts seem to be alot about blame and unhappiness, once one gets the whole picture. Or that's how it seems to me. For the most part, I think I can safely say we don't think as deeply as you do and I, for one, don't even want to try. Humor and light sees us through a lot of situations and you seem to be a darker, heavier person (and I am not talking about physically.)
And why do you think cows eat chemicals every day? Most of them, and I might be wrong, but I would bet 99.5% of them DO NOT. Our cows, for instance, eat hay every day. And that is hay that has never seen fertilizer or weed spray. And they get mineral from a place that has superior quality control. That, and some grass grazing, is their total diet.
On second thought, perhaps you are calling chemicals fertilzer and weed spray. If so, my 99.5% probably won't stand up. I can't think that fertilizer that goes into the ground is considered a chemical in the forage produced, but maybe so. People can get some pretty strange ideas. And I have no idea how many people spray their hayground for weeds. It isn't done around any of the places I know of, but I won't profess to know what goes on besides in parts of the west. People with grain spray for weeds but I don't know of anyone that sprays hay...alfalfa is a broad leaf and you would kill the alfalfa with most weed sprays.
Stevec, if you are trying to teach me something, you need to get me in a learning frame of mind. Right now, I don't even want to be in your class.
You have alienated me with your holier than thou attitude.
Just how did you find this site, anyway?
Do you ever have a humorous moment? Everything is do or die with you.
Ranchers aren't like that. We face so many challenges that we have learned to laugh. At ourselves, at a situation, at life. That's why we have been able to meet those challenges. You gotta be made of pretty stern stuff. We mostly don't BLAME anyone and your posts seem to be alot about blame and unhappiness, once one gets the whole picture. Or that's how it seems to me. For the most part, I think I can safely say we don't think as deeply as you do and I, for one, don't even want to try. Humor and light sees us through a lot of situations and you seem to be a darker, heavier person (and I am not talking about physically.)
And why do you think cows eat chemicals every day? Most of them, and I might be wrong, but I would bet 99.5% of them DO NOT. Our cows, for instance, eat hay every day. And that is hay that has never seen fertilizer or weed spray. And they get mineral from a place that has superior quality control. That, and some grass grazing, is their total diet.
On second thought, perhaps you are calling chemicals fertilzer and weed spray. If so, my 99.5% probably won't stand up. I can't think that fertilizer that goes into the ground is considered a chemical in the forage produced, but maybe so. People can get some pretty strange ideas. And I have no idea how many people spray their hayground for weeds. It isn't done around any of the places I know of, but I won't profess to know what goes on besides in parts of the west. People with grain spray for weeds but I don't know of anyone that sprays hay...alfalfa is a broad leaf and you would kill the alfalfa with most weed sprays.
Stevec, if you are trying to teach me something, you need to get me in a learning frame of mind. Right now, I don't even want to be in your class.
You have alienated me with your holier than thou attitude.
Just how did you find this site, anyway?
Southdakotahunter
Well-known member
Sorry Greg.....i couldnt resist! :lol: :wink: :wink: 
:lol:
:lol:Frankk
Well-known member
In my neck of the woods if you don't spray alfalfa for insects they will kill it out.
theHiredMansWife
Well-known member
:???:
No....
theHiredMansWife
Well-known member
Actually, rather than getting POed, I prefer to inform.
I'm not entirely sure what he's thinking of yet, so I was just going let my little puzzled guy sit there until steve elaborated.
And his basic assertion is dead-on. Stewardship has long been an important issue in civilization. When it was spoken of in the Bible, it was speaking to an agrarian society, too.
I looked back at his first post again and simply cannot see what is so threatening about his question:
do you not consider yourselves stewards of the land and the wildlife on it? Or do you just see the boundry of your business, and nothing beyond it?
Yes, I do consider myself a steward of the land. I think a balance has to be struck between nature and business. Don't you?
I'm not entirely sure what he's thinking of yet, so I was just going let my little puzzled guy sit there until steve elaborated.
And his basic assertion is dead-on. Stewardship has long been an important issue in civilization. When it was spoken of in the Bible, it was speaking to an agrarian society, too.
I looked back at his first post again and simply cannot see what is so threatening about his question:
do you not consider yourselves stewards of the land and the wildlife on it? Or do you just see the boundry of your business, and nothing beyond it?
Yes, I do consider myself a steward of the land. I think a balance has to be struck between nature and business. Don't you?
Mike
Well-known member
theHiredMansWife said:
Vegetables and fruit are much more likely to be inundated with chemicals than cattle are.
Even if 'Organic' you would need be leery of the pathogens from manure fertilized veggies, etc.
Yes obviously,we are stewards of our land that was made obvious it my post to stevec BUT you honestly do not think hes trying to pull our chains by saying"cows are fed chemicals constantly,aren't they? Really HMW,the man is NOT stupid,he knows we DO NOT feed chemicals to our cattletheHiredMansWife said:Actually, rather than getting POed, I prefer to inform.
I'm not entirely sure what he's thinking of yet, so I was just going let my little puzzled guy sit there until steve elaborated.
And his basic assertion is dead-on. Stewardship has long been an important issue in civilization. When it was spoken of in the Bible, it was speaking to an agrarian society, too.
I looked back at his first post again and simply cannot see what is so threatening about his question:
do you not consider yourselves stewards of the land and the wildlife on it? Or do you just see the boundry of your business, and nothing beyond it?
Yes, I do consider myself a steward of the land. I think a balance has to be struck between nature and business. Don't you?
He said that to get a reaction,I'm not answering him BUT you go right ahead and educate him.theHiredMansWife
Well-known member
actually Mrs.Greg, that is a very common misconception; that livestock are constantly fed hormones, antibiotics, etc. (I'm not sure if this is what steve is thinking of though)
I've been chatting with people across the US (and Canada) on message boards for about 15 years. Anytime something about livestock production comes up there is always someone who brings this up.
I've been chatting with people across the US (and Canada) on message boards for about 15 years. Anytime something about livestock production comes up there is always someone who brings this up.
IF he is really as smart a man as I think he is maybe he should think about how its coming across! If I didn't know somthing and wanted to be educated on it I most certainly wouldn't ask a question like a statement.Maybe he could have said,I understand cattle are fed chemicals all the time,right or wrong?The thing is I'm not the only one frustrated with his statements,if he truly is here to learn maybe he should look into how hes coming across :!:
theHiredMansWife
Well-known member
This is your suggestion:
And this is what he actually said:
So far as how he comes across, I knew a gal like this in college. She'd ask the weirdest questions, and have the oddest, most idealistic ideas...
But she never meant anything malicious. She only wanted people to think outside the box. She often didn't even recognize that there was a box, so she couldn't understand how others could be happily constrained to it. :wink:
But I guess that's how I see steve.
And this is what he actually said:
I gotta say, I don't see much difference...
So far as how he comes across, I knew a gal like this in college. She'd ask the weirdest questions, and have the oddest, most idealistic ideas...
But she never meant anything malicious. She only wanted people to think outside the box. She often didn't even recognize that there was a box, so she couldn't understand how others could be happily constrained to it. :wink:
But I guess that's how I see steve.
Liberty Belle
Well-known member
Can't find the definition on your own, huh? Well, here it is:
Socialism
Socialism is an ideology of a social and economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned and administered democratically by all of society. Amongst other things, this is intended to produce a more evenly spread distribution of wealth. The idea of abolition of private property became a part of the idea in the early 19th century. How this democratic society should be run exactly and how it should be implemented or achieved is a matter of controversy and has resulted in many theories of socialism and related ideas. In Marxist theory, it also refers to the society that would succeed or supplant capitalism, and would later develop further into communism.
We are a capitalistic society. Given capitalism on the right side and socialism on the left, Tony Dean is definately a left leaner. Where do you stand? Are you in favor of property being collectivly owned, i.e. national forests and other publically owned lands?Are you in favor of the federal government being able to tell private property owners what they can or can't do with their land if it happens to be habitat for publically owned wildlife? Are you in favor of others being able to dictate the way you run your business or your home because the public's interest supersedes your interests? If you answer any of these questions with a yes, you, my friend, are a socialist, as is Tony Dean.
If you have the capital and the expertise to make a go of either enterprise, more power (pun intended) to you. As long as you obey the law, you go right ahead and do whatever you can to be profitable. Just remember that your rights end where mine begin. If you abuse the rights of others, you're in the wrong. No one is above the law, not landowners, not hunters, not socialist fishing gurus like Tony Dean, and under our wonderful system of government, not even politicians are above the law.
Now I have a question for you that you have been avoiding. You couldn't wait to reveal my identity when Tony Dean posted his diatribe against me on his website. Everyone on here knows that my name is Betty Olson and I live in Harding County, South Dakota, a fact I'm quite proud of, by the way.
When we asked you to give us your name, which only seems fair, you just disappeared. Why? Don't you have the courage of your convictions?
I find it odd that the only posts you've made have been targeting me. Do you like shooting from the shadows? Does it make you feel safer?
Come on – step up to the plate and announce your name to the world. You'll be a better man for it and this old Grandma won't hurt you. :twisted:
