User avatar
By B.M. Barrelcooker
#564215
Maybe they should have sent Sharpton down there.

Now that would have been a hoot.
User avatar
By jdub
#564216
SOBF wrote:I kind of have mixed emotions on this. On one hand the cheap fuck should have paid his fees. On the other why do the feds own so much land to begin with.
Image
Who owns the west...YOU own the west. And you should come out an enjoy it. What a change it was to move from Mass where heading up to Maine and VT and NH, etc. was a constant dodge of private land, and then to live in Zion where you can camp, climb, hike, fish on miles and miles of PUBLIC lands.
Screen shot 2014-04-13 at 9.24.57 AM.png
Screen shot 2014-04-13 at 9.24.57 AM.png (432.89 KiB) Viewed 653 times
By Jed
#564217
Not a fan of Bundy but those federal first amendment jails are bullshit. I've seen them used against both sides of the political spectrum and it is anything but supporting the first amendment. The first amendment is freedom of speech, not freedom of speech where nobody can hear or see you.

Slap Bundy in jail and fuck that freeloader and dope slap the goberment for suppressing the right of protest.

jed
User avatar
By MTgrayling
#564218
SOBF wrote:I kind of have mixed emotions on this. On one hand the cheap fuck should have paid his fees. On the other why do the feds own so much land to begin with.
He's a raging scumbag. The people of the USA own a lot of land.


Just how does federal inaction in the face of an armed insurrection affect; people who use public lands, ranchers who graze as well as possible and pay their fees in the desert west, federal control of public lands, listed endangered species?

It's amazing they returned his cattle. Wtf!

I wish they could have stopped this dog damned sagebrush rebellion/wise use/freeloading ranchers shit once and for all.
By SOBF
#564230
Who owns the west...YOU own the west. And you should come out an enjoy it. What a change it was to move from Mass where heading up to Maine and VT and NH, etc. was a constant dodge of private land, and then to live in Zion where you can camp, climb, hike, fish on miles and miles of PUBLIC lands.
I have been on BLM managed land many times as well as private land owners who allow it. One of the areas I love to fish in WA is mostly on private land. The landowner has allowed us to camp and fish many times. They own about 40,000 acres. I'll throw this out. Is private land ownership good for us or bad ?

Never had much problem with access here in Maine Jdub. Lots of National Forest land in NH as well. Is it the west. NO Maine is some much smaller than most (all) states out west it's hard to compare. We are the most heavily forested if I recall. We just have no fish.
User avatar
By Spudnik
#564234
If the BLM sold all of its land in Montana, I would have almost nowhere to hunt birds. And we would lose a lot of our fishing access sites. It would be bad.
User avatar
By Cary
#564240
SOBF wrote:
I'll throw this out. Is private land ownership good for us or bad ?
the correct answer both. Clearly private land ownership is a cornerstone of our society, an absolute necessity. As well, the vast public lands we have to enjoy sets us apart from the most of the rest of the world. its funny, a lot of folks point to the maps being circulated that show huge public holdings west of the plains. the corollary is that I bet most of the citizens east of the plains wish they came into statehood later and had more public land to enjoy.

Secondly, it seems that a lot on the fringe right think that if the BLM and USFS lands wen private, they'd somehow be given a piece, like it was the homestead act all over again... :roll:

the fact is that public land and private landowners are continuously trading acreage in and out of ownership, trades that often optimize the use of the lands. I've been involved in a few of these, where occluded mature timber sections were traded for prime riverfront parcels (anyone fish the McLoud River?). Absent the USFS, BLM, and NPS, what would prevent the Tragedy of the Commons? Giving in to bundy and his clan sets a harmful precedent. I'm glad no one was hurt and no martyrs were created, but sick to my stomach this welfare leech got away with it. :vomit
User avatar
By SLSS
#564246
I think they had to de-escalate things. Seemed like it was getting pretty crazy.
By gadflyfisher
#564282
Agreed Lima.
That is why they put those "rights areas" there but that was terrible PR.

Same goes with pulling back, but it looks more like a defeat thru the lens of the media to the masses
Once again it shows weakness (although I believe you should pick what is worth a fight).

And while I am sure they felt that any escalation could lead to bloodshed so eased tensions, in effect they were defeated.
It is this presidency's worst trait and one that I agree with the far right on.
By gadflyfisher
#564283
OK please educate me.
What exactly are you talking about with this connection of Obama, Holder and Sharpton.
Other than they are all trying to use each other as pols always do?
Do you know of a conspiracy that is taking place?
User avatar
By blumpkin
#564299
Wrong thread, but there is no conspiracy. Everything Holder and Obama
have done to polish up Sharptons image so they can use him like they did last week has been completely in the open. In fact Obama and Holder are both friends with Al.

You can the culmination of that relationship in the events last week at the National Action Now yearly conference.

Spoiler alert: they blamed whitey for everything.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 34
whatcha tying?

1A9E5BF8-4D13-4594-96AD-CED020A3B418.jpeg 044[…]

Classic Atlantic Salmon Flies

I'll give him one thing....he's persistent.

^ leaned... Are you ejumecated, Sir?

Friday Cheer Through Pics

That camp rifle would make me want to forget my bu[…]

Subscribe to The Drake Magazine