BLM, Forest Service and Nevada Ranchers

[Musket Man]

Musket, multiple use doesn't just mean grazing,mining, or farming. It means what it says. The land managers have to weigh all the uses that go along with those aforementioned uses. When one conflicts with another then there's going to be some regulations attached. Off road vehicle use is usually not compatible with hikers. So the least amount of disturbance usually wins the day. Running 1000 head of cattle on 600,000 acres of fragile habitat might have been to detrimental to all the other uses of that area. Maybe mule deer, Big Horn sheep, and other wildlife were taking it in the shorts because the cattle eat to much vegetation. Therer range enclosures that managers look at to see how much degradation the cattle are doing. When they eat more than the required amount to be left then there's reductions that take place by law. The "FEDS" are the ones entrusted to make sure the lands aren't over grazed.

Endangered species are also given special treatments and regulations are set in place to protect them.

I think ranchers and farmers are pretty good stewards of their private lands, I just think the feel the same way about the publics. Most of our state lands in Montana are grazed to death, in some instances not even domestic sheep will use them. The Federal lands of the Forest Service are usually Ok, I'm not so keen on the grazing that takes place on BLM. It might be better than what I'v seen but I won't hold my breath.

Bundy utilized public lands only, and that was his family's mistake. If he were just leasing private lands, and the owner decided to stop leasing the grazing to them, you would be alright with that because your in favor of private property rights? What about the publics rights to the lands that Bundy leased? Do you think there's any that go along with them?

I have not seen any proof that cows were harming the tortoise or any other use of the land. Over 60% of the tortoise in the DTCC where there are no cows have diseases and are dying so that tells me the tortoise's problem is not cows. Bundys grazing allotment goes with the deeded land he owns so to me it is different then leasing private land. Nevada is about 85% public land and most ranchers graze mostly on public land and if they loose the public land they are pretty much out of business and the deeded land they do own is not worth much without the grazing allotment that goes with it.

 

[shoots-straight]

I have not seen any proof that cows were harming the tortoise or any other use of the land. Over 60% of the tortoise in the DTCC where there are no cows have diseases and are dying so that tells me the tortoise's problem is not cows. Bundys grazing allotment goes with the deeded land he owns so to me it is different then leasing private land. Nevada is about 85% public land and most ranchers graze mostly on public land and if they loose the public land they are pretty much out of business and the deeded land they do own is not worth much without the grazing allotment that goes with it.

That's the first I've heard about the Tortoise disease. Do you have a credible link to that?

If Bundy would have kept on paying the lease, it would have stayed with the land. He quit paying it and has no recourse. He could have filed an appeal of the decision to cut his lease if he still owned it. It's tough nuts now.

 

[shoots-straight]

You boys wait until tomorrow, then there will be some experts show up. I'm no expert on this subject, I report just what I see.

Good night!

 

[BigRack]

You boys wait until tomorrow, then there will be some experts show up. I'm no expert on this subject, I report just what I see.

Good night!

Experts in what? My argument in this thread is the most farmers and ranchers take care of the land.

Are you denying this?

 

[Musket Man]

That's the first I've heard about the Tortoise disease. Do you have a credible link to that?

If Bundy would have kept on paying the lease, it would have stayed with the land. He quit paying it and has no recourse. He could have filed an appeal of the decision to cut his lease if he still owned it. It's tough nuts now.

http://www.infowars.com/before-neva...m-was-euthanizing-endangered-desert-tortoise/


"So, facing the prospect of shutting their doors, the DTCC began releasing healthier turtles into the wild, and euthanizing some of the sick ones.
From the AP, August 25, 2013:
Back at the conservation center, a large refrigerator labeled “carcass freezer” hummed in the desert sun as scientists examined the facility’s 1,400 inhabitants to find those hearty enough to release into the wild. Officials expect to euthanize more than half the animals in the coming months in preparation for closure at the end of 2014.
“It’s the lesser of two evils, but it’s still evil,” Roy Averill-Murray, tortoise recovery coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service desert, told the AP.
Averill-Murray estimated 50 to 60 percent of the facility’s 1,400 tortoises were stricken with disease and could not be housed near healthy tortoises. Others were “too feeble to survive,” according to the AP, and could not be adopted out.
“The ones that don’t get better and that are sick and suffering will probably be euthanized because that’s the sensible thing to do,” Allyson Walsh, associate director for the San Diego Zoo’s Institute for Conservation Research, said."

 

[ringer]

SS-Bundy refused to sign the new lease agreement because it cut him down to 150 head which can't generate enough profit to keep a ranch in business. The other ranchers folded their tents but he wanted to do what the family had done for generations. Would you have signed the new agreement to cut you to 10% of your allotment?

 

[Big Fin]

SS-Bundy refused to sign the new lease agreement because it cut him down to 150 head which can't generate enough profit to keep a ranch in business. The other ranchers folded their tents but he wanted to do what the family had done for generations. Would you have signed the new agreement to cut you to 10% of your allotment?

I can't speak for Shoots, but my answer would be this.

I would either sign it, or I would have went and found other grass (public or private) to lease, or I would have sold my herd, or I would have taken the decision to the next court level if I thought I had a case.

I respect the property rights of the land I am on, no matter what the activity or who the owner. I am not such a hypocrite about property rights that I expect I can create my own rights at the expense of other landowners, whether the landowner be a private party or a government agency. For me to continue to occupy property I don't own or have a lease on would be a violation of someone's property rights. To state it any other way is BS.

If I were in Bundy's shoes and I did not like the court outcomes that forced this change in my grazing, I could have taken my court case to the appeals level. Why he did not exercise this right tells me one of two things; 1) he knew he would lose and decided to not spend more money in court, or 2) he and his legal counsel are really ignorant about how the court system works.

Those of us who come from logging families see the risks of being dependent upon resources that come from public lands. We may not like the problems the come with new laws that change the management of these public lands, but that is an inherent risk of building a business on public resources, whether logging or ranching or ........ In some respects, many of us have "been there and done that" as it relates to state or federal lands impacting businesses.

If he is such a patriot, such a firm believer in the Constitution, he would follow the laws and process set out in the Constitution. He did not not.

He might be a nice guy who was in a tough spot, but there exists no grown person who hasn't been in a tough spot at sometime in his life. How we handle those tough spots says a lot about our character. Some will judge Bundy's handling of his tough spot as admirable. I look at it as a guy who really has no respect for the property of others and when his business risks come home to roost, he wants the world to revolve around his view of life.

Would you continue imposing on and using property that the court determined belonged to someone else and that you had no rights to use or impose on?

If so, would you do the same to your neighbor who is not a government agency?

 

[JLS]

I have not seen any proof that cows were harming the tortoise or any other use of the land. Over 60% of the tortoise in the DTCC where there are no cows have diseases and are dying so that tells me the tortoise's problem is not cows. Bundys grazing allotment goes with the deeded land he owns so to me it is different then leasing private land. Nevada is about 85% public land and most ranchers graze mostly on public land and if they loose the public land they are pretty much out of business and the deeded land they do own is not worth much without the grazing allotment that goes with it.

It's not like the tortoises are just falling over left and right from disease. This may put a little different context to the situation.

But federal funds are running dry at the Las Vegas Valley facility, and rather than release the animals, officials plan to euthanize about half of the 1,400 tortoises. The 220-acre facility will shut its doors in 2014, and the tortoises deemed feeble to survive in the wild will be set free. Many of the tortoises at the center were formerly kept as pets and are unable to survive in the desert.

“It’s the lesser of two evils, but it’s still evil,” US Fish and Wildlife Service desert tortoise recovery coordinator Roy Averill-Murray told the Associated Press.

The facility usually takes in diseased or injured tortoises and nurtures them back to health, but new arrivals will most likely be put to sleep.

http://rt.com/usa/desert-tortoises-euthanize-nevada-024/

 

[TLC]

http://www.infowars.com/before-neva...m-was-euthanizing-endangered-desert-tortoise/


"So, facing the prospect of shutting their doors, the DTCC began releasing healthier turtles into the wild, and euthanizing some of the sick ones.
From the AP, August 25, 2013:
Back at the conservation center, a large refrigerator labeled “carcass freezer” hummed in the desert sun as scientists examined the facility’s 1,400 inhabitants to find those hearty enough to release into the wild. Officials expect to euthanize more than half the animals in the coming months in preparation for closure at the end of 2014.
“It’s the lesser of two evils, but it’s still evil,” Roy Averill-Murray, tortoise recovery coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service desert, told the AP.
Averill-Murray estimated 50 to 60 percent of the facility’s 1,400 tortoises were stricken with disease and could not be housed near healthy tortoises. Others were “too feeble to survive,” according to the AP, and could not be adopted out.
“The ones that don’t get better and that are sick and suffering will probably be euthanized because that’s the sensible thing to do,” Allyson Walsh, associate director for the San Diego Zoo’s Institute for Conservation Research, said."

using alex jones as a credible source, is like saying obama is a credible source in health management. anyone or anything less of a conspiracy theorist you might have would be nice.

 

[RobG]

http://www.infowars.com/before-neva...m-was-euthanizing-endangered-desert-tortoise/


"So, facing the prospect of shutting their doors, the DTCC began releasing healthier turtles into the wild, and euthanizing some of the sick ones.
From the AP, August 25, 2013:
Back at the conservation center, a large refrigerator labeled “carcass freezer” hummed in the desert sun as scientists examined the facility’s 1,400 inhabitants to find those hearty enough to release into the wild. Officials expect to euthanize more than half the animals in the coming months in preparation for closure at the end of 2014.
“It’s the lesser of two evils, but it’s still evil,” Roy Averill-Murray, tortoise recovery coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service desert, told the AP.
Averill-Murray estimated 50 to 60 percent of the facility’s 1,400 tortoises were stricken with disease and could not be housed near healthy tortoises. Others were “too feeble to survive,” according to the AP, and could not be adopted out.
“The ones that don’t get better and that are sick and suffering will probably be euthanized because that’s the sensible thing to do,” Allyson Walsh, associate director for the San Diego Zoo’s Institute for Conservation Research, said."

FWIW, it takes about 100 good solid informed posts before anyone will forgive you for getting information from the infowars site . Alex Jones is a paranoid nut.

 

[RobG]

using alex jones as a credible source, is like saying obama is a credible source in health management. anyone or anything less of a conspiracy theorist you might have would be nice.

See .

 

[noharleyyet]

Originally Posted by TLC View Post
using alex jones as a credible source, is like saying obama is a credible source in health management. anyone or anything less of a conspiracy theorist you might have would be nice

.

See .

...hope you meant Si.......

 

[shoots-straight]

http://www.infowars.com/before-neva...m-was-euthanizing-endangered-desert-tortoise/


"So, facing the prospect of shutting their doors, the DTCC began releasing healthier turtles into the wild, and euthanizing some of the sick ones.
From the AP, August 25, 2013:
Back at the conservation center, a large refrigerator labeled “carcass freezer” hummed in the desert sun as scientists examined the facility’s 1,400 inhabitants to find those hearty enough to release into the wild. Officials expect to euthanize more than half the animals in the coming months in preparation for closure at the end of 2014.
“It’s the lesser of two evils, but it’s still evil,” Roy Averill-Murray, tortoise recovery coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service desert, told the AP.
Averill-Murray estimated 50 to 60 percent of the facility’s 1,400 tortoises were stricken with disease and could not be housed near healthy tortoises. Others were “too feeble to survive,” according to the AP, and could not be adopted out.
“The ones that don’t get better and that are sick and suffering will probably be euthanized because that’s the sensible thing to do,” Allyson Walsh, associate director for the San Diego Zoo’s Institute for Conservation Research, said."

I said Credible link. Alex Jones, infowars. Really?

 

[shoots-straight]

Experts in what? My argument in this thread is the most farmers and ranchers take care of the land.

Are you denying this?

Experts on grazing public lands.

We went over that, you want a declaration signed?

I think ranchers and farmers are pretty good stewards of their private lands, I just think they don't feel the same way about the publics. Most of our state lands in Montana are grazed to death, in some instances not even domestic sheep will use them. The Federal lands of the Forest Service are usually Ok, I'm not so keen on the grazing that takes place on BLM. It might be better than what I'v seen but I won't hold my breath.

 

[shoots-straight]

SS-Bundy refused to sign the new lease agreement because it cut him down to 150 head which can't generate enough profit to keep a ranch in business. The other ranchers folded their tents but he wanted to do what the family had done for generations. Would you have signed the new agreement to cut you to 10% of your allotment?

See post #282.

Really do you guys read the posts written or just skim through them?

 

[Sytes]

.




...hope you meant Si.......

Leave it to the Texican...

 

[Musket Man]

using alex jones as a credible source, is like saying obama is a credible source in health management. anyone or anything less of a conspiracy theorist you might have would be nice.

I was referring to the quotes from US Fish and Wildlife Service desert tortoise recovery coordinator Roy Averill-Murray. Maybe you will like these better.


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/desert-tortoise-faces-threat-its-own-refuge

http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...se-sanctuary-close-inhabitants-euthanized.htm

 

[Mule Deer]

This is a pretty clear cut case of a guy feeling entitled, aka welfare rancher... He didn't pay his fees and should lose his grazing rights. Regardless of the tortoise. There is no argument that can be made against that. He has lost in court twice, hasn't paid his fees to outright use your land and mine land. Why people stick up for this guy is beyond me. The big bad government isn't always trying to hurt you.

I'm not the best guy to ask, because my experience with ranchers is nothing but negative. I can't stand the over grazing of public lands, the corner cutting, the posting of private land signs.... It goes on and on, and that's not all the ranchers fault, but a lot of it is. They run you off the county roads, are rude to you, question why you are around.... They just bug the hell out of me... Ive never had a god experience with a rancher.For a group that is so adamant on stopping handouts, they are one of the most entitled entities out there.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Experts in what? My argument in this thread is the most farmers and ranchers take care of the land.

Are you denying this?

What do farmers have to do with any of this? Farming and ranching are two very different things here in the West.

Some ranchers take great care of the land they lease others just do what they have to to not get the boot

 

[Elkmagnet]

My patience has worn thin on this subject.




This thread is now locked