Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby nitram » Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:27 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:

Government should have the burden of proof that it is necessary and clearly it is not necessary that the sate own 85% of the property unless you think states like Massachusetts where the federal government only owns less than 1%. How is that not definitive proof that there it would work just fine. There is not a state east of the Mississippi that the feds own more than 14% and most less 5%. Are they less efficient than states where the feds own the majority of the state? :lol3:




:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f-ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.- Al Swearengen
User avatar
nitram
hunter
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: West OK on the South Canadian Riviera


Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby nitram » Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:58 pm

If the 'trespass cattle' were people here illegally, the DOJ would be running guns to them and the DHS would be driving by offering phones and EBT cards. - Dana Loesch
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f-ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.- Al Swearengen
User avatar
nitram
hunter
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: West OK on the South Canadian Riviera

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby drahthaar » Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:19 pm

drahthaar
hunter
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:47 pm

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:44 pm

He warned us.....
Speaking on the House of Representatives floor on September 17, 1997, then-Rep. Ron Paul warned of the “massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators.”


The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:51 am

Subjugation through Bureaucracy. It has been practiced consistently throughout history to bring a free people to heel. It is being used in the US to destroy freedom. The pleebs just suck up the swill and bleat about how it is so good for us all and everyone should be equally free. F'n idiots.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby nitram » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:57 am

drahthaar wrote:http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/19/high-rate-of-deportations-continue-under-obama-despite-latino-disapproval/




http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/24/new-d ... z2xYLoA1Dx

Taken from the link you provided. Believe what you will...
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f-ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.- Al Swearengen
User avatar
nitram
hunter
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: West OK on the South Canadian Riviera

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:59 am

"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

"He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures."

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution"

"For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."

How do these not apply to the federal government today as much as they applied to King George when they were written?

Look especially at that last quote. The Federal government has nearly declared themselves invested with power to legislate and regulate in all cases whatsoever. The simple twist the obvious meaning of things like commerce among the States to mean all commerce because the butterfly effect applies, so my vegetable garden is subject to federal regulation under the interstate commerce clause.

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” –James Madison
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby dudejcb » Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:03 pm

beretta24 wrote:Why can't the ownership be transfered to the states? That's the argument most make, not let's sell it to private citizens.

It could be, and that was (and remains) at the heart of the Sagebrush Rebellion begun during the Reagan administration and James Watt. Problem is, the states are eager to then move ownership into monied private hands (read that cronies and donators) and it is forever lost for public use/benefit, but the public is usually tagged with whatever cleanup may be required due to pollution. (The private owners claim bankruptcy or some other clever dodge to avoid liability/responsibility/costs for remediation...and the public gets stuck, coming and going. This is a big reason why the 1872 mining law is such a joke.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby dudejcb » Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:05 pm

beretta24 wrote:Why can't the ownership be transfered to the states? That's the argument most make, not let's sell it to private citizens.

It could be, and that was (and remains) at the heart of the Sagebrush Rebellion begun during the Reagan administration and James Watt. Problem is, the states are eager to then move ownership into monied private hands (read that cronies and donators) and it is forever lost for public use/benefit, but the public is usually tagged with whatever cleanup may be required due to pollution. (The private owners claim bankruptcy or some other clever dodge to avoid liability/responsibility/costs for remediation...and the public gets stuck, coming and going. This is a big reason why the 1872 mining law is such a joke.
http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/general_mining_law_of_1872#.U2FXLCe9KSM
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:41 pm

dudejcb wrote:Problem is, the states are eager to then move ownership into monied private hands (read that cronies and donators) and it is forever lost for public use/benefit, but the public is usually tagged with whatever cleanup may be required due to pollution.
First off, that's the same crooks that control DC that control the state governments. So yes Harry Reid would shift control from his hands in DC to his hands in NV if we transferred it to the state, but we do not have to do that. When we gave away vast amounts of land in what is now the middle of the county, we didn't pass it through state hands. Give it DIRECTLY to the people. Parcel it out, award it by lottery, and let them do with it as they please.

I would be 100% fine with that lottery ONLY including single mothers on food stamps. What's wrong with that?

dudejcb wrote:and it is forever lost for public use/benefit
This is idiotic. What is the public? The collections of individuals. It would be lost to government control. Only a moron thinks a rancher raising cattle, a miner producing minerals, or any other business does not produce public benefits because they are not government owned.

Would the public be better off if the federal government had retained ownership of all the land it bought in the Louisiana Purchase or do we suffer because all that land was lost for "public use/benefit" as you say? Serious question, because that is what you imply.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby dudejcb » Wed Apr 30, 2014 3:07 pm

When I say "public" use, I mean use by guys like us: hunters and fisherman.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:09 pm

dudejcb wrote:When I say "public" use, I mean use by guys like us: hunters and fisherman.

So your definition of public use means I can use it. That's a pretty self-centered definition.

You are a rent-seeker just as much as any of the crony capitalists. :yes:

http://auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/rent-seeking_behavior

You dodged the question, would the country be better off if you could hunt on 85% of the land acquired by in the Lousiana Purchase because the Federal government still owned it? What are the odds your family would have moved to Wisconsin if it were 85% owned by the feds versus being stuck back in the east where the public could by land for their personal use?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:16 pm

Call me a commie, but giving free land away to single moms who can't pay the taxes is stupid. It is even more stupid to give useless track of land no one wants to live on away. Leave them as they are and let all citizens have access to them. If the Fed wants to bar access then it is time to give them land away to people who will use them.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby shoveler_shooter » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:06 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:Call me a commie, but giving free land away to single moms who can't pay the taxes is stupid. It is even more stupid to give useless track of land no one wants to live on away. Leave them as they are and let all citizens have access to them. If the Fed wants to bar access then it is time to give them land away to people who will use them.

X2
UmatillaJeff wrote:By his very nature this tends to be a modest man who is loved by woman, children and dogs and well though of in all social circles.
We will call him the 10ga man
User avatar
shoveler_shooter
hunter
 
Posts: 4175
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Stillwater and Owasso

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby nitram » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:39 pm

If only Clive Bundy would have named his ranch 'Benghazi', the feds would have never shown up.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f-ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.- Al Swearengen
User avatar
nitram
hunter
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: West OK on the South Canadian Riviera

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby Indaswamp » Wed Apr 30, 2014 8:54 pm

nitram wrote:If only Clive Bundy would have named his ranch 'Benghazi', the feds would have never shown up.

Bazinga!!!!
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 01, 2014 6:12 am

shoveler_shooter wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:Call me a commie, but giving free land away to single moms who can't pay the taxes is stupid. It is even more stupid to give useless track of land no one wants to live on away. Leave them as they are and let all citizens have access to them. If the Fed wants to bar access then it is time to give them land away to people who will use them.

X2

How much taxes and benefit to society comes from the government owning the land? Very little and that compounds generation after generation.

What would the single mothers do with the land? Sell it to someone that will use it more efficiently than it is currently being used and those benefits will compound generation after generation.

If given the two alternatives of government ownership in perpetuity or giving it to single mothers to appeal to the liberals irrational emotions, the choice is very easy. Is it ideal? Of course not, but liberals have the power to keep doing the harm of government ownership until the end of time, so we can find a way to make things better or we can stand on principle and ensure our principles are violated in perpetuity as opposed to correcting the problem with a generation or so.

When negotiating with someone, you have to give them something they want in exchange for something you want that is more valuable than what you give them. Of course it sounds commie, we have to negotiation with liberals that have strong communist leanings :fingerhead:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby dudejcb » Thu May 01, 2014 7:27 am

SpinnerMan wrote:...If given the two alternatives of government ownership in perpetuity or giving it to single mothers to appeal to the liberals irrational emotions, the choice is very easy. Is it ideal? Of course not, but liberals have the power to keep doing the harm of government ownership...
Where did this come from? Another one of those non sequitor leaps from nowhere to your favorite whipping boy for which you are infamous.

There is no harm in government ownership of (relatively) natural lands unless someone invokes the 1872 minig law (which no Republicans in the west are in favor of reforming), or if they allow scofflaws to degrade the range through irresponsible practices.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 01, 2014 8:01 am

dudejcb wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:...If given the two alternatives of government ownership in perpetuity or giving it to single mothers to appeal to the liberals irrational emotions, the choice is very easy. Is it ideal? Of course not, but liberals have the power to keep doing the harm of government ownership...
Where did this come from? Another one of those non sequitor leaps from nowhere to your favorite whipping boy for which you are infamous.

There is no harm in government ownership of (relatively) natural lands unless someone invokes the 1872 minig law (which no Republicans in the west are in favor of reforming), or if they allow scofflaws to degrade the range through irresponsible practices.

The government can own too much land. This is SO obvious. There is an optimum level, which obviously varies by state.

If you believe there is no harm in government ownership of natural lands, then there would have been no harm with the U.S. government retaining all of the lands they acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. They were mostly natural lands at that point.

I proposed a maximum of 20% in any single state. Even that I suspect is far more than necessary for the federal government in any state.

Do you believe it is POSSIBLE for the feds to own too much of the land in a single state? I hope so. Clearly 100% would seem too much. If you agree 100% is clearly too much, what is the optimum ratio for fed to non-fed ownership?

I think it is never more than 1 out of 10 and often much less. I don't think it is too low at present anywhere. I know it is too high in some places and constrains the options available to the local people and does economic harm as a result by driving housing prices up in economically depressed areas.

There is no harm in the feds owning some land. There is a lot of harm when they own too much land. Is it possible for them to own too much land in your opinion? Anything approach half the land owned by DC seems absurd. They are wildly too far removed to have any clue what the local community really needs which should be determined by essentially local democracy (popular opinion).
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu May 01, 2014 8:22 am

The Louisiana Purchase argument is weak Spinner. When that land was purchased the government was trying to push people to move west. The land was allowed to be homesteaded simply to get Americans out there. That in no way correlates to the modern situtation in Americas West and government vs private ownership.

Yes, the government can own to much land, it can also own to little.
Last edited by ScaupHunter on Thu May 01, 2014 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 01, 2014 8:33 am

ScaupHunter wrote:The Louisiana Purchase argument is weak Spinner. When that land was purchased the government was trying to push people to move west. The land was allowed to be homesteaded simply to get Americans out there. That in no way correlates to the moderns situtation in Americas West and government vs private ownership.

Yes, the government can own to much land, it can also own to little.

You made the argument earlier about the East being over populated. Do you disagree? So why should the government not still be encouraging people to move west and turn the open, low productive spaces into more productive spaces? Granted, it will never be the bread basket, but who knows what ingenious people will do.

Dude's argument is that it would be harmful for the feds to not own the land. It's silly.

BTW, the feds could have held on to 10%, 20%, ... If owning 85% is a good thing, there should be harm from them having given away too much. They only own 0.8%of Iowa, 1.2% of Kansas and 1.4% of Nebraska. Where's the harm to the nation? They could have held on to big chunks and still sent enough people out there to drive out the Indians and secure the frontier.

Why were they encouraging them that is a hell of a lot different today? The big benefit to the nation was economic productivity. To take that unproductive land and make it productive. That still applies today. As I said, we aren't going to turn Nevada into Kansas, but who knows what clever people will do when they are motivated to make the most out of their property?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby dudejcb » Thu May 01, 2014 8:36 am

I'm intrigued by this notion of an optimal level of government land ownership. I imagine you have a formula or function to describe this theoretical balance point. Or not!

From my observation, it appears federal land ownership is governed a few ways. The "best places" are set aside as parks, national recreation, or wilderness areas. The worst are owned because no one really wants them except perhaps to strip away some value (grazing, timber, minerals) while not having to protect, defend, pay taxes, or pay to clean up their messes on the acreage. And another seems to be for public benefit (public use or as a public benefit ... e. g., the dams for power and irrigation administered by TVA, BPA, and the Bureau of Reclamation. There are other drivers as well, but this isn't meant to be exhaustive.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby dudejcb » Thu May 01, 2014 8:36 am

I'm intrigued by this notion of an optimal level of government land ownership. I imagine you have a formula or function to describe this theoretical balance point. Or not!

From my observation, it appears federal land ownership is governed a few ways. The "best places" are set aside as parks, national recreation, or wilderness areas. The worst are owned because no one really wants them except perhaps to strip away some value (grazing, timber, minerals) while not having to protect, defend, pay taxes, or pay to clean up their messes on the acreage. And another seems to be for public benefit (public use or as a public benefit ... e. g., the dams for power and irrigation administered by TVA, BPA, and the Bureau of Reclamation. There are other drivers as well, but this isn't meant to be exhaustive.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5267
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 01, 2014 9:53 am

dudejcb wrote:I'm intrigued by this notion of an optimal level of government land ownership. I imagine you have a formula or function to describe this theoretical balance point. Or not!

From my observation, it appears federal land ownership is governed a few ways. The "best places" are set aside as parks, national recreation, or wilderness areas. The worst are owned because no one really wants them except perhaps to strip away some value (grazing, timber, minerals) while not having to protect, defend, pay taxes, or pay to clean up their messes on the acreage. And another seems to be for public benefit (public use or as a public benefit ... e. g., the dams for power and irrigation administered by TVA, BPA, and the Bureau of Reclamation. There are other drivers as well, but this isn't meant to be exhaustive.

I don't have a formula. If you did, there certainly would be many subjective values that go into that formula where every single individual would value them differently, which is where representative government comes in. Of course, representative government is great when your opinions are in the minority, but sucks when your opinions are far outside the mainstream.

This is soft science and not hard science :wink:

While I generally agree with the "best places" being retained by government. My definition for FEDERAL ownership is something truly unique (i.e., a national treasure) like Yellowstone that has great value to people well beyond the borders of the state where it lies. Most parks and wilderness areas that should be retained by the government are local or regional treasures if you will where the land is little to no value beyond the state or border states and these should be retained by the state government. Most outdoor recreation areas fall into this category in my opinion. Granted this is all heavily based on opinion and subjective value judgments. Then there are areas of value to the local community and little value beyond that, so these should be under local government control.

Another category of land that should be owned by government is land for legitimate functions of government. The federal government requires some pretty huge pieces of property for this and it's hard to argue that the Nevada desert is not the optimum place to have located the Nevada Test Site or the Nellis Air Force Base.

And I do agree that there are cases where things such as dams that provide true general welfare benefits (e.g., flood control, barge access, etc.) that cannot be capitalized should be government functions. These are high value high capital investments, but pretty rare things as a fraction of the economy or land area.

Now as far as the "worst" lands. I do not buy your argument. Do farmers "strip" away value from their land? There intent is to maximize the value of their land. What you are describing is the tragedy of the commons. When you do not own the land it is typically economically rational to strip away as much value as you can. Sustainable agriculture is economically rational when it is your, when you have a temporary short term lease or in competition with others to get yours first, it is not. Granted, there still must be regulations, because total elimination of the tragedy of the commons when it comes to air, water, etc. is not 100% avoidable.

It is this desire to maximize the value of the land that leads to maximizing the value of the land. That doesn't mean an acre of Nevada desert will ever be worth an acre in Manhattan. It does mean that over time, on average it will be more valuable than it otherwise would have been because the right incentives are in place. Would the people of Kansas made the same level of investments they made if they did not own the land, but simply had a lease on that land from the government?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 01, 2014 1:30 pm

dudejcb wrote:I'm intrigued by this notion of an optimal level of government land ownership. I imagine you have a formula or function to describe this theoretical balance point. Or not!

From my observation, it appears federal land ownership is governed a few ways. The "best places" are set aside as parks, national recreation, or wilderness areas. The worst are owned because no one really wants them except perhaps to strip away some value (grazing, timber, minerals) while not having to protect, defend, pay taxes, or pay to clean up their messes on the acreage. And another seems to be for public benefit (public use or as a public benefit ... e. g., the dams for power and irrigation administered by TVA, BPA, and the Bureau of Reclamation. There are other drivers as well, but this isn't meant to be exhaustive.

That's pretty much been my feeling throughout this thread, dude! :thumbsup: Comparing the percentage of Govt owned land on the east or west coast and in Nev. is apples and oranges.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10885
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests