Yesterday - Bundy Ranch

[Dr. Jones]

"There are about 45 million acres of public rangelands in Nevada. These rangelands are divided into 745 grazing allotments. There are 550 operators, or permittees, with a total of 635 permits to graze livestock."

https://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/grazing.html

This page says the total acreage of BLM land in Nevada is about 48 million:

https://www.wildlandfire.com/docs/2007/western-states-data-public-land.htm

So, the answer to your question is "no". There appears to be plenty of government rangeland available to ranchers in Nevada.

The total acreage of BLM land set aside as "wilderness" in Nevada is 2,056,545. That is about 4%. Another 2.5 million-or-so acres is designated as a "wilderness study area". I guess that may or may not eventually become "wilderness", but is probably managed currently as "wilderness".

To summarize:

* About 90% of BLM land in Nevada (significantly more than 50% of the state) is public rangeland.
* About 8% of BLM land in Nevada is currently managed as wilderness (around 5% of the total land in the state).

Thanks for agreeing.

 

[One Brow]

I love you, Eric, but damn, man.

Response in the other thread, because I promised to do so.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

And the part the New York Times/Media Matters/HuffPOS conveniently left out of that Bundy quote?

and so what I’ve testified to ya’, I was in the WATTS riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people is thinking they did not have their freedom; they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don’t want to go back; we sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point; we sure don’t want the Mexican people to go back to that point;and we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.

Shocker. And all the reactionaries across the country ate it all up. He's guilty of hanging on to some outdated vocabulary. Boo hoo.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

And the part the New York Times/Media Matters/HuffPOS conveniently left out of that Bundy quote?




Shocker. And all the reactionaries across the country ate it all up. He's guilty of hanging on to some outdated vocabulary. Boo hoo.

He's unnecessarily lumping. Widespread generalization of "the negro" is no different than using "Today's blacks," with the exception that the reception of the terminology he used has more furor. It wasn't just the language used that was offensive, it was the message as well. He could have just said, "Blacks are lazy, but it's better than it was." Would have meant basically the same thing.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

He's unnecessarily lumping. Widespread generalization of "the negro" is no different than using "Today's blacks," with the exception that the reception of the terminology he used has more furor. It wasn't just the language used that was offensive, it was the message as well. He could have just said, "Blacks are lazy, but it's better than it was." Would have meant basically the same thing.

Then deride the stupidity of it. His life focused on ranching, that's the area of life he is educated in, not being a media PR queen. Those two paragraphs posted above are his lead-in to that other stuff, and he is basically saying that he wants to free those people from government. Which makes any racial spin absolutely absurd. Then he continues with a little kooky comparison about blacks on welfare that he's most familiar with, North Las Vegas blacks, and wonders if they might be better off under slavery to support his previous comments. But he was clearly referring to the prison of an unoccupied mind, nothing else.

then he finishes off his thoughts with this:

Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know I understand that they come over here against our constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people – and I’ve worked side-by-side a lot of them.

Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structure than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people.

And we need to have those people join us and be with us…. not, not come to our party.

The reality is he is a sloppily spoken advocate of other/different kinds of people. The farthest thing from a racist.

 

[Stoked]

THat is indeed much different than what was portrayed Duck.

Still extrememly idiotic the way he words himself.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

THat is indeed much different than what was portrayed Duck.

Still extrememly idiotic the way he words himself.

He's a bit of a nutter, I have no problem saying that. I have nothing invested in the guy personally. If I did, I would've tried defending him yesterday. But my first thought was that he didn't just start ranting about welfare and slavery out of nowhere. He sounded wrong to me yesterday, but I knew there was going to be some context to come later.

But the issue is that he's a like a candidate for political office now because he's a public figure for the moment being and at least half the country can't stand the guy, so the attack dogs are breathing down his neck. We've had terrorist thrown at him, racist..... Next, he'll be accused of screwing hookers at the Bunny Ranch or something. He's a womanizer. Sexist pig. Anything to take away from the matter at hand.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Then deride the stupidity of it. His life focused on ranching, that's the area of life he is educated in, not being a media PR queen. Those two paragraphs posted above are his lead-in to that other stuff, and he is basically saying that he wants to free those people from government. Which makes any racial spin absolutely absurd. Then he continues with a little kooky comparison about blacks on welfare that he's most familiar with, North Las Vegas blacks, and wonders if they might be better off under slavery to support his previous comments. But he was clearly referring to the prison of an unoccupied mind, nothing else.

I don't see how it's relevant to his case anyway.

Even in the extreme, it's a stupid connection. HE'S A RACIST, SO HE SHOULDN'T GRAZE CATTLE.

Makes me hope he's wrong in his case, perhaps, but that particular news item is uninteresting to me in the long run.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Can we get back to the point?

That there are the most powerful politicians in America conspiring to run these ranchers off the land for profit...

If you can do it transparently, fine. But to do this, is disgusting;

- Have law firms masquerading as environmentalist groups sue the BLM to protect a species
- Have BLM do the dirty work to act on said lawsuit and force ranchers to reduce herds
- Sell the non-clouded federal water rights and the land to the highest bidder (with an already-arranged agreement to remove the 'issue' of the endangered species
- rinse and repeat

Every one of you that don't care that this is going on (let's just assume for a moment I'm right.. I am) don't deserve the freedoms you do enjoy.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Can we get back to the point?

That there are the most powerful politicians in America conspiring to run these ranchers off the land for profit...

If you can do it transparently, fine. But to do this, is disgusting;

- Have law firms masquerading as environmentalist groups sue the BLM to protect a species
- Have BLM do the dirty work to act on said lawsuit and force ranchers to reduce herds
- Sell the non-clouded federal water rights and the land to the highest bidder (with an already-arranged agreement to remove the 'issue' of the endangered species
- rinse and repeat

Every one of you that don't care that this is going on (let's just assume for a moment I'm right.. I am) don't deserve the freedoms you do enjoy.

That's so dickish it isn't even funny.

Every conspiracy story of this type isn't new, even if it is true. Every other week on 60 minutes there's a story with exploit x law or individual for profit. When it's a specialty cause, especially outside of the U.S., people get labeled as "bleeding heart liberals" if they care about it. This story is no more compelling than any other of its ilk. It only is for you because you're emotionally invested in it. Get off your high horse and quit doing the act. A person who really cared about this issue wouldn't be trying to make book deals and such and would actually WAIT to show proof rather than try and tease to get more viewers and more profit. Kind of embarrassing.

 

[Dr. Jones]

That's so dickish it isn't even funny.

Every conspiracy story of this type isn't new, even if it is true. Every other week on 60 minutes there's a story with exploit x law or individual for profit. When it's a specialty cause, especially outside of the U.S., people get labeled as "bleeding heart liberals" if they care about it. This story is no more compelling than any other of its ilk. It only is for you because you're emotionally invested in it. Get off your high horse and quit doing the act. A person who really cared about this issue wouldn't be trying to make book deals and such and would actually WAIT to show proof rather than try and tease to get more viewers and more profit. Kind of embarrassing.

That's the weak *** America I've come recently to know. WAIT. <----------- yeah, a LOT of that.

Just because it's widespread abuse doesn't make it right. And if I have to be dickish about it to change it, I'm willing. I don't give a **** whether it's right or left, at ALL. I only care that we all stop sleeping while elected officials rape us.

I DO have proof.. in spades. But you and others of your ilk will gladly discount the information because it's too much work to find the truth. MUCH easier to say meh..

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Just because it's widespread abuse doesn't make it right.

Yeah, so why weren't you like this on the countless other claims of governmental abuse? You didn't pipe up about those so you don't deserve the freedoms you do enjoy.

And if I have to be dickish about it to change it, I'm willing. I don't give a **** whether it's right or left, at ALL. I only care that we all stop sleeping while elected officials rape us. [/quote]

Being a dick in this thread so far has gotten you where? More specifically the comment I bolded? You're not inciting to arms with your behavior. You're getting dismissed as too emotionally involved. You're HURTING your case by being dickish.

I DO have proof.. in spades. But you and others of your ilk will gladly discount the information because it's too much work to find the truth. MUCH easier to say meh..

Which you haven't provided. Now, I understanding timing can be very important in cases like this. But continuing "I HAVE PROOF I HAVE PROOF I HAVE PROOF" and being unable to provide proof gets you dismissed. What you really need to do is shut your proverbial trap until you can actually provide said proof. Doesn't matter that you have it (true or no). Until you provide it, it's worth the same amount as what I flushed a couple hours ago.