What's new

Yesterday - Bundy Ranch

Well the claim is that they have placed road ways, water tanks, irrigation lines...can be argued as improvements to the land. Just not enviromental improvements which seems to be what you are arguing. I wonder if that was a specific issue decided in court.

I'd say it's more about sustainability and resource management, not specifically environmental improvement. The amount of resources needed to keep a desert/steppe land sustainable for 1000 cattle to graze is pretty large given the environmental impact. This is why it's not surprising water rights appears to be a large issue here.
 
The lengths some will go to defend their defense of a racist piece of ****. Wow.

A cowboy hat and a gun on a turd is a turd, folks.

This has much more to do with other issues than defending one rancher.
I actually can't think of anyone in this thread that is actually defending Bundy no matter what on this whole situation.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];814020 said:
This is A PART of the debate. It was a massive MISSING PART early on, which is why I raised a fuss.

I still have no idea what you're talking about with noise and commotion. Unfortunately, I gotta run.

The type of "improvement" they are claiming is the kind that requirs machinery and construction. That means noise and commotion. So it they are building a road way or erecting a water tank then the cows if even in that area will drift away to more peaceful areas.
 
Are you even reading this thread? The general consensus is that Bundy is wrong legally as well as a bigot/racist. But we are beyond arguing about him and are talking about the details of the case. Damn man...


Yes, I'm reading the thread.

.......

I'm not even referring to you or your posts. Why do you need to be involved and comment on every post in every thread even when no one is talking to you? It's annoying.
 
And you're under the impression that all you have to do is work hard and you'll get everything you've ever wanted?

How white are you exactly?

Exactly where did I say that? C'mon…I didn't say anything remotely like that.

If you have opportunities, and you don't work hard, you aren't going to get far.

If you don't have opportunities, and you do work hard, you may not get far, but at least you have a chance.

If you have opportunities, and you work hard, the chances of getting farther are increased. Nothing is definite, but yeah, I think that if you work hard the chances of getting further are increased. You're living proof of that.
 
Exactly where did I say that? C'mon…I didn't say anything remotely like that.

If you have opportunities, and you don't work hard, you aren't going to get far.

If you don't have opportunities, and you do work hard, you may not get far, but at least you have a chance.

If you have opportunities, and you work hard, the chances of getting farther are increased. Nothing is definite, but yeah, I think that if you work hard the chances of getting further are increased. You're living proof of that.

I'm also white as a ghost, and grew up seeing white males dominate the workforce. Not native american, seeing my village elders survive off the land and only the land.
 
Yes, I'm reading the thread.

.......

I'm not even referring to you or your posts. Why do you need to be involved and comment on every post in every thread even when no one is talking to you? It's annoying.

Then maybe you should specify who you are talking to so people know. If you leave it open expect to be answered by anybody considering this is a public forum. If you have a problem with that then to damn bad.
 
Then maybe you should specify who you are talking to so people know. If you leave it open expect to be answered by anybody considering this is a public forum. If you have a problem with that then to damn bad.

I can post however I like, thank you. OK, fine. Now I am talking about you.

Is there any possible way that his racist opinions and his opinion on government overstepping and oppression are linked? I see a lot of posters trying to separate the two, but they are in fact closely connected.

I can see a possible disatisfaction with the government being fueled by what he feels is preferential treatment.

Oops! I'm sure Bundy is Stoked you're standing up for him and his "dissatisfaction fueled by preferential treatment".

Good job.
 
I can post however I like, thank you. OK, fine. Now I am talking about you.





Oops! I'm sure Bundy is Stoked you're standing up for him and his "dissatisfaction fueled by preferential treatment".

Good job.

Give me a damn break. I was the first to call him a racist on here and I've already said he was wrong legally. Understanding (or theorizing as I was trying to in your quote) is not the same as condoning, agreeing or even defending. Nice try but no.
 
I find it hard to believe desert/steppe land can sustain itself when being grazed by 1000 cattle. Buildings and roads aren't going to change that. The only way to sustain the land as it is currently is to pump resources into it. Hard to consider that an improvement.

That desert area will sustain a substantial number of cows. The area gets sufficient rain to produce an abundance of desert plants....most years. . . and a few very wet years, relatively speaking. flowers, scrub brush of several kinds, and is heavily populated with some bushes about four feet high, a little sage and a lot of chapparal. Even the BLM knows that land can sustain more than a thousand cattle. They figure on some deer and some antelope as well. . . . and ten thousand rabbits as well. The cows do not tear up roots like sheep do. Mountain sheep have been re-introduced into the area, and it is one of the premier ranges for those particular animals in this country.

cows are beneficial to even this kind of desert because they don't destroy the seeds in their digestion, but transport them and dump them out on barren spots in a nice pile of moist fertilizer that will help absorb and retain rainwater. In effect, they do millions of dollars worth of re-seeding and beneficial improvements on this land.
 
Back
Top