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 SpinnerMan » Thu May 01, 2014 2:05 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
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.

Why? Clearly the land is not worthless or they wouldn't be asking Bundy for a million dollars because he used worthless land, would they? This entire argument started over just ONE rancher out of quite a few using the "worst" land that clearly is worth millions of dollars. If it were not, did the government not commit fraud in trying to collect? Are they not gouging all the ranchers that are paying the fees?

I'm well aware of the differences. I've lived in New Mexico. I've lived in eastern Washington. I've been to California, New Mexico, Utah, Texas, and Nevada more times than I can remember. I've been to Arizona a couple times, I've been to Idaho a few times I've been through almost every state at out west least once. I have worked extensively over the years with people from Idaho, New Mexico, Washington, Nevada, California, and Texas. Given that I grew up in the east and lived in most states from PA to GA and that I know live in the midwest, I have a pretty good ideas of the exact nature of the apples and oranges that I am comparing.

What is your basis for thinking you know what things in the east are like? You have to know both sides to compare them.

The real difference is that have to be different for your argument that they should be treated different to hold any water. They are not that different to justify the federal government to treat them so vastly different.

BTW, my suggest was not to go to the same levels in the west as in the east precisely because the $/acre value of the land is very small relative to the land in the midwest or the east. For example, this makes using it for things like military test facilities much more efficient than using more expensive land located near more people.

You are simply trying to find a reason to keep your subsidized access to government land on top of your desire for top down control of the central government which appeals to your gut reaction that people must be controlled by a central authority, which sadly is the normal human condition and the reason strongmen, dictators, kings, popes, etc. are the norm around the world and over history.
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: 15939
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL


Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby dudejcb » Thu May 01, 2014 2:45 pm

Yes, that's it! People must be controlled by a central authority or I'm not happy. :lol3: :lol3:

Thanks for helping me get that off my chest Spinney. I owe you. :beer:
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 01, 2014 3:09 pm

dudejcb wrote:Yes, that's it! People must be controlled by a central authority or I'm not happy. :lol3: :lol3:

Thanks for helping me get that off my chest Spinney. I owe you. :beer:

dudejcb wrote:Problem is, the states are eager to then move ownership into monied private hands (read that cronies and donators)
So there must be central control because the states are too corrupt to handle it themselves.

This is just one of many examples (granted not the best) of the kind of thinking that I refer.

What I never get is how you don't believe the feds are immune from doing the same. There is evidence, not definitive, that that is exactly what is happening here. Reid is notorious for this behavior.

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/

The Bureau of Land Management, whose director was Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site
:huh: :huh: :huh:

Deleted from BLM.gov but reposted for posterity by the Free Republic, the BLM document entitled “Cattle Trespass Impacts” directly states that Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development, more specifically the construction of “utility-scale solar power generation facilities” on “public lands.”


Back in 2012, the New American reported that Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firm planning to build a $5-billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nevada.
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: 15939
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 01, 2014 3:33 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
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.

Why? Clearly the land is not worthless or they wouldn't be asking Bundy for a million dollars because he used worthless land, would they? This entire argument started over just ONE rancher out of quite a few using the "worst" land that clearly is worth millions of dollars. If it were not, did the government not commit fraud in trying to collect? Are they not gouging all the ranchers that are paying the fees?

I'm well aware of the differences. I've lived in New Mexico. I've lived in eastern Washington. I've been to California, New Mexico, Utah, Texas, and Nevada more times than I can remember. I've been to Arizona a couple times, I've been to Idaho a few times I've been through almost every state at out west least once. I have worked extensively over the years with people from Idaho, New Mexico, Washington, Nevada, California, and Texas. Given that I grew up in the east and lived in most states from PA to GA and that I know live in the midwest, I have a pretty good ideas of the exact nature of the apples and oranges that I am comparing.

What is your basis for thinking you know what things in the east are like? You have to know both sides to compare them.

The real difference is that have to be different for your argument that they should be treated different to hold any water. They are not that different to justify the federal government to treat them so vastly different.

BTW, my suggest was not to go to the same levels in the west as in the east precisely because the $/acre value of the land is very small relative to the land in the midwest or the east. For example, this makes using it for things like military test facilities much more efficient than using more expensive land located near more people.

You are simply trying to find a reason to keep your subsidized access to government land on top of your desire for top down control of the central government which appeals to your gut reaction that people must be controlled by a central authority, which sadly is the normal human condition and the reason strongmen, dictators, kings, popes, etc. are the norm around the world and over history.

You asked and answered your own question, Spin. Do I get a chance? :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 01, 2014 3:50 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
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.

Why? Clearly the land is not worthless or they wouldn't be asking Bundy for a million dollars because he used worthless land, would they? This entire argument started over just ONE rancher out of quite a few using the "worst" land that clearly is worth millions of dollars. If it were not, did the government not commit fraud in trying to collect? Are they not gouging all the ranchers that are paying the fees?

I'm well aware of the differences. I've lived in New Mexico. I've lived in eastern Washington. I've been to California, New Mexico, Utah, Texas, and Nevada more times than I can remember. I've been to Arizona a couple times, I've been to Idaho a few times I've been through almost every state at out west least once. I have worked extensively over the years with people from Idaho, New Mexico, Washington, Nevada, California, and Texas. Given that I grew up in the east and lived in most states from PA to GA and that I know live in the midwest, I have a pretty good ideas of the exact nature of the apples and oranges that I am comparing.

What is your basis for thinking you know what things in the east are like? You have to know both sides to compare them.

The real difference is that have to be different for your argument that they should be treated different to hold any water. They are not that different to justify the federal government to treat them so vastly different.

BTW, my suggest was not to go to the same levels in the west as in the east precisely because the $/acre value of the land is very small relative to the land in the midwest or the east. For example, this makes using it for things like military test facilities much more efficient than using more expensive land located near more people.

You are simply trying to find a reason to keep your subsidized access to government land on top of your desire for top down control of the central government which appeals to your gut reaction that people must be controlled by a central authority, which sadly is the normal human condition and the reason strongmen, dictators, kings, popes, etc. are the norm around the world and over history.

You asked and answered your own question, Spin. Do I get a chance? :lol3:

So you agree with my answers? That's good to know. Otherwise, you passed on your chance to provide your answers :yes:
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: 15939
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 01, 2014 3:55 pm

The real point being, Spinner, that no one is clamoring for this land. The Feds, as owners, simply asked the same grazing right fees out of Bundy as they do of everyone else in the area (I assume). I have not done so, but it would be interesting to know the actual rates charged in all states and areas where this is practiced. Bundy simply found a way around payment of this fee. Does he keep these fees, the ones he tried to pay the state, in an escrow account until such time as the matter is adjudicated? I doubt it.
There is also the matter of the "Giant Desert Tortoise". Is this simply a strawman, or is it a valid concern? It never seems to get brought up. I know that much construction is held up by the finding of a rare or endangered species on the property. Sometimes it appears valid, at other times it seems politically motivated. I don't know in this case.
However, making blanket assumptions re govt owned land vs private percentages is invalid. The Feds keep a lot of petroleum reserves in case of dire emergency. Should they not keep land that is in low demand, in isolated areas, and inland for future needs? We agreed that we have no idea what the next 30 or 100 years will bring. Perhaps some of this land could be utilized as solar fields, when the market is correct for the product, and the reliance upon non-renewable energy could be greatly diminished in who knows how many areas.
Remember, we are talking, re Bundy, of the lifestyle of ONE family. You are a pragmatist in most matters. How much is it costing us to virtually support this one family? Is it cost effective?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 01, 2014 3:59 pm

I just caught up with you Spinner. We posted atthe same time. I guess I agree on that point, the value of the land is not equal, and that has a definite influence on the point of making it available to anyone else for purchase.. See my questions and answers above. (I guess that's a little dense on my part...you probably did to get here! :lol3: )
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 01, 2014 4:30 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:The real point being, Spinner, that no one is clamoring for this land.
Are you kidding me? All the vast amount of land owned by the federal government, no one is clamoring for any of it :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

They are not clamoring for ALL of it, but I'll bet Mr. Bundy or people like him would surely pay millions of dollars to own land that they currently lease for millions of dollars and probably many more times than that in aggregate. And isn't it better to own than lease if that is where you will be for your your entire life and generations after that?

If there are people willing to rent it, there are people willing to own it :fingerhead:

Are you starting to drink early? :umm:

Glimmerjim wrote:Bundy simply found a way around payment of this fee.
Bundy is not the issue. If his grandfather had been allowed to buy the land or lose it to someone else, there would be know issue and he would be left to live his life as he sees fit.

Glimmerjim wrote:There is also the matter of the "Giant Desert Tortoise". Is this simply a strawman, or is it a valid concern?
Endangered species live on private land too. So no it is not an issue, any more than any other endangered species that lives on private land. A bald eagle lands on your property, it is no more or less protected than when on federal land. Indian reservations, well, that may be a different story.

Glimmerjim wrote:The Feds keep a lot of petroleum reserves in case of dire emergency.
A legitimate government exercise. Guess what? They can retain the mineral rights and sell the land :yes:

Glimmerjim wrote:Should they not keep land that is in low demand, in isolated areas, and inland for future needs?
Do they need 85% of Nevada? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: Seriously, do they need almost 50% of California on top of that? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: And what about all the other states?

Yes they should, but they are wildly in excess of any reasonable reserve. I'll bet you and I could come to agreement on a reasonable value based on current use, historic use, and what we think are reasonable projections about the future. Don't forget, if they are wrong, they can use eminent domain to get what they need.

Glimmerjim wrote:We agreed that we have no idea what the next 30 or 100 years will bring.
We have ideas. We can make conservative assumptions. Uncertainty, even large uncertainty is not an excuse to do nothing. Why? Because the same argument applies equally effectively for the other side. You can be wrong in both directions. It is not strong support for your or my position.

Glimmerjim wrote:Perhaps some of this land could be utilized as solar fields, when the market is correct for the product, and the reliance upon non-renewable energy could be greatly diminished in who knows how many areas.
Then the commercial power companies will pay for the land just like they do for every other kind of power plant they build :fingerhead:

Granted the crony capitalists would like the government to subsidize them with free land. A very limited amount for that is OK when they are in the technology development and demonstration phase. I'd much prefer they do like they did with the Land Grant Colleges. Obama is big on health care. Land Grant Hospitals to serve the under served areas.

Glimmerjim wrote:Remember, we are talking, re Bundy, of the lifestyle of ONE family. You are a pragmatist in most matters. How much is it costing us to virtually support this one family? Is it cost effective?
He's likely an ass as far as I can tell. That has nothing to do with the justification for the federal government owning 85% of Nevada.
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: 15939
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 01, 2014 5:02 pm

I am trying to respond, Spinner, but when I go to post the various quotes are pretty much all together, instead of previous quotes prefaced with [quote...], and my new statements not in quotes or boxes. I see the problem in that I have a row of these [quotes.....] near the end of my response that are the finish for all of our preceding statements, but if I delete them they just return when I go to post!!! What the heck am I doing wrong?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby Nabs » Thu May 01, 2014 8:17 pm

It is not the land ownership that is in question, to me it is also not about the grazing fees. It is a militarized response to exert control on an American citizen who has not been adjudicated as criminally guilty in a court of of law by a jury of his peers. I hate to drag my point of view continuously back to center stage, but Nevada is a free range state and as such the responsibility to control animal access falls to the owner of said lands. The owner is the federal government (whether they should own it or not aside) they are responsible for controlling access and they failed. The federal government then showed up with armed jackboot thugs to force their position. I may not defend your opinion about anything, I will however defend your right to express those opinions.

If we are to adopt the opinion that might makes right, we have failed as a nation, especially when the US government is using might to be right against innocent (not even criminally charged) American citizens.
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby Indaswamp » Thu May 01, 2014 8:20 pm

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

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56519
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby dudejcb » Thu May 01, 2014 9:33 pm

Spinner, I guess the land in the arid west is as worthless (speaking casually) as anything in the united states. I prefer Idaho to the Salton Sea area in So Cal. But the question, as with many things, always comes down to costs versus value. What's the value proposition?

To own the land you'd have to pay taxes of some sort. If the government owns it has costs of ownership to defray. Fire protection, land management, etc. as good and prudent stewards of the public good.

To the extent the land has value for grazing, the cost of that grazing, ostensibly, is lower in cost than whatever alternative may be availalbe at it's cost. Supposedly higher or he wouldn't do it.

So the land has both value and costs to consider. A lease defrays some of those costs and the taxpayers benefit. the rancher gets easy grazing without the fully burdened cost of land ownership. the general public still has that leased range land to hunt deer, chukar, quail, and perhaps find a hot spring or cool hole--hopefully with no cow schidt in it.

Public policy begets law, law begets regulations/rules that are promulgated and codified, business and contracts result and everyone benefits to varying degrees. It's all puppy dogs and flowers.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby nitram » Fri May 02, 2014 5:39 am

A little cow :censored: never hurt anyone.....
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: 540
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: West OK on the South Canadian Riviera

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri May 02, 2014 8:40 am

Glimmerjim wrote:The real point being, Spinner, that no one is clamoring for this land. The Feds, as owners, simply asked the same grazing right fees out of Bundy as they do of everyone else in the area (I assume). I have not done so, but it would be interesting to know the actual rates charged in all states and areas where this is practiced. Bundy simply found a way around payment of this fee. Does he keep these fees, the ones he tried to pay the state, in an escrow account until such time as the matter is adjudicated? I doubt it.
There is also the matter of the "Giant Desert Tortoise". Is this simply a strawman, or is it a valid concern? It never seems to get brought up. I know that much construction is held up by the finding of a rare or endangered species on the property. Sometimes it appears valid, at other times it seems politically motivated. I don't know in this case.
However, making blanket assumptions re govt owned land vs private percentages is invalid. The Feds keep a lot of petroleum reserves in case of dire emergency. Should they not keep land that is in low demand, in isolated areas, and inland for future needs? We agreed that we have no idea what the next 30 or 100 years will bring. Perhaps some of this land could be utilized as solar fields, when the market is correct for the product, and the reliance upon non-renewable energy could be greatly diminished in who knows how many areas.
Remember, we are talking, re Bundy, of the lifestyle of ONE family. You are a pragmatist in most matters. How much is it costing us to virtually support this one family? Is it cost effective?


Jim you often miss important points in your own posts. Lets take for example the idea that the BLM is charging everyone grazing fees. We already covered that those fees were specifically set up to handle tortoise protection and improvements to the systems on the property for the cattle and protection of the Tortoise. Now we see the BLM has spent the money to buy people out, harrass, threaten, and harangue the last rancher who won't sell out. The used the money to illegally bust up his legally owned private water supply systems that are allowed under his water right on public land. They used the very funds he was paying them against him a while back. He decided to tell them to go pack sand since they breached their contract with him. What would you do with your child when they decided not to obey the house rules? How about your wife? You don't jsut sit back and take abuse when someone makes the rules and decides to break them for their own advantage. The BLM has very clearly done this. Love or hate Clive is irrelevant. He is protesting and rightfully so abuse a hands of his representative government. It sure as hell isn't representing him. No one is funding Bundy. That is a piss poor analogy. He is refusing to pay fees for something they are not being used for anymore. That doesn't cost Americans anything. Spending 3 million to chase cows sure as hell does though. That is on the BLM no Clive. Now toss in Reid and his actions and conflicts and you see a major money shift and power play going on.
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: 6503
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri May 02, 2014 11:30 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:The real point being, Spinner, that no one is clamoring for this land. The Feds, as owners, simply asked the same grazing right fees out of Bundy as they do of everyone else in the area (I assume). I have not done so, but it would be interesting to know the actual rates charged in all states and areas where this is practiced. Bundy simply found a way around payment of this fee. Does he keep these fees, the ones he tried to pay the state, in an escrow account until such time as the matter is adjudicated? I doubt it.
There is also the matter of the "Giant Desert Tortoise". Is this simply a strawman, or is it a valid concern? It never seems to get brought up. I know that much construction is held up by the finding of a rare or endangered species on the property. Sometimes it appears valid, at other times it seems politically motivated. I don't know in this case.
However, making blanket assumptions re govt owned land vs private percentages is invalid. The Feds keep a lot of petroleum reserves in case of dire emergency. Should they not keep land that is in low demand, in isolated areas, and inland for future needs? We agreed that we have no idea what the next 30 or 100 years will bring. Perhaps some of this land could be utilized as solar fields, when the market is correct for the product, and the reliance upon non-renewable energy could be greatly diminished in who knows how many areas.
Remember, we are talking, re Bundy, of the lifestyle of ONE family. You are a pragmatist in most matters. How much is it costing us to virtually support this one family? Is it cost effective?


ScaupHunter wrote: Jim you often miss important points in your own posts. Lets take for example the idea that the BLM is charging everyone grazing fees. We already covered that those fees were specifically set up to handle tortoise protection and improvements to the systems on the property for the cattle and protection of the Tortoise.


Okay. That would all make a little sense, scaup, had Bundy PAID them. They sure didn't take HIS money and "harrass, threaten, and harangue" anybody, because they didn't HAVE his money.


ScaupHunter wrote: He is refusing to pay fees for something they are not being used for anymore. That doesn't cost Americans anything.


The Fed's established a fee for grazing rights. Do you really believe that they must spend this income on "land rehab"? If you wreck your car and get a settlement check from the insurance company, must you fix the car with that money? If the state charges you property tax, do you get to decide exactly how that money is spent? How about income tax and sales tax?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Nevada Rancher defends his turf....

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat May 03, 2014 1:00 pm

dudejcb wrote:To own the land you'd have to pay taxes of some sort. If the government owns it has costs of ownership to defray. Fire protection, land management, etc. as good and prudent stewards of the public good.
Essentially you are arguing that the grazers are being subsidized because the state or the feds picks up the tab for these things and passes them on to the taxpayers.

I'm sorry, but 85% of the state is absurd. They don't need that much land.
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: 15939
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests