Ranchers list concerns about decisions by the BLM

Open range in central Nevada

Open range in central Nevada

Ranchers all across Nevada are beginning to speak out about how the arbitrary and capricious decisions by federal land agencies — especially the Bureau of Land Management — are threatening their livelihood and very existence as a viable business.

Back in October a group of them got together and wrote down a list of their concerns to present to lawmakers.

Admittedly, it is in jargon unique to ranching (AUMs are animal units per month, which is what grazing fees are based on), but these are the expressed concerns:

  • Agency conjecture that reductions in AUMs, based on utilization at arbitrary locations, would cause improved range conditions.
  • Actual affects of AUM reductions has been ranches that are no longer profitable and cannot be sold for a fair price.
  • Suspended AUMs have not been reactivated.
  • BLM range improvements are not timely and grazier funded range improvements are discouraged.
  • Riparian regulations that are onerous, with unrealistic objectives. These now include prohibition of grazing high elevation rangelands during the summer (hot-season).
  • Monitoring data that does not represent more than the small area of each transect and interpretation of the monitoring that is misleading.
  • Water rights ownership demands by BLM including (1) prohibiting water development for management unless half of the water right is signed over to the BLM and (2) BLM water right filings over vested water rights.

     

After listing their concerns, the frustrated ranchers concluded:

“It has become apparent that growing regulatory pressures on the livestock industry are approaching the economical threshold for many Nevada ranchers … The result is abandonment of our ranches, our way of life, and the loss of the generations of ranch family members who are essential for good range and forest conditions.”

Did I mention that those concerns were expressed in October of 2005?

That was before the BLM had a drought as an excuse for cutting grazing permits. That was before the sage grouse were threatened with extinction and used as an excuse for cutting grazing permits. That was before the current explosion in the population of wild horses that eat the forage and drink the cattlemen’s water.

The more things change, the more they get worse.

29 comments on “Ranchers list concerns about decisions by the BLM

  1. snibbodmot says:

    Sounds like the Obama administration, via the BLM, is trying to further drive up food prices….

  2. Vernon Clayson says:

    The more things change, etc., it really is about those on the ground that have seen first hand the fluctuations of nature and dealt with it, sometimes there’s more rain and more water and sometimes there’s less, the ranchers move their herds to where there’s food and water in coordination with nature as opposed to soft-handed faraway bureaucrats that use computer models to measure what the land will provide and stand for. Free ranging cattle seem so natural, what do those dainty bastards in air controlled offices want, feed lots where a cow spends its entire life in an enclosure, living in a world of stink and its own shit while being fed dry hay, doctored feed, and government approved supplements for a quicker move to market. They’re dull brutes, but back to the cattle, they won’t eat dry hay if green grass is available and the rather small number of cattle on ranches like Bundys won’t make pastures into dust bowls from overgrazing. The rangers are also on the ground and should know better than clerks at a computer what works on the range, Harry Reid’s man at the BLM sent them but I doubt that many of them had their heart in this debacle. There’s no rhyme or reason for any of this, the empty deserted lots in cities like Detroit could handle the number of cattle on Bundys ranch if the water was provided and was safe and people with more guns than on Bundy’s ranch wouldn’t use them for targets.

  3. Milty says:

    When these concerns were raised in 2005, we had a Republican President who had been in office for over four years. The House had been under Republican control since 1997. With the exception of an 18 month period from mid-2001 to the beginning of 2003, the Senate had also been under Republican control since 1997.

    The House and Senate stayed under Republican control for another year after these concerns were raised, and the President was a Republican for another three years after these concerns were raised.

    I understand that the federal bureaucracy is pretty much uncontrollable regardless of who controls the executive and legislative branches. But information like this only causes me to ask myself why I was ever a Republican.

  4. Anonymous says:

    You know someone else who is totally not a racist?
    Donald Stirling.

  5. Steve says:

    Anon using the broad brush to prejudice all old white guys into the same painting.

    typical attempted deflection. But shows Anon’s clear hatred and prejudice.

  6. Vernon Clayson says:

    Milty wonders why he was ever a Republican but a difference with Democrats is all but indiscernible. Some people are as wired to one party or the other as religious zealots are to their beliefs. Once in power a politician’s main aim is to retain it, secondly it’s to abuse the power, and the people be damned. Changing topics, Anon mentions an individual that is not a racist, I’ll go him one better, Al Sharpton is a racist, can there be any doubt? I’m waiting for him to go to Bunkerville breathing fire.

  7. nyp says:

    I always wondered why Clive Bundy had such good seats to Clippers games.

  8. Steve says:

    Desperately scraping for racist to hang in effigy, nyp goes the length.

  9. Milty says:

    So does Nyp believe that Jason Bullock is no different than Jews who supported the Nazis?

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/24/deleted-tweets-spark-controversy-in-illinois-gubernatorial-race/

  10. Anonymous says:

    I dunno. Who is Jason Bullock?
    BTW — there were no Jews who supported the Nazis. So, on second thought, the answer to your query necessarily has to be “no”.

  11. Anonymous says:

    That is bullshit

  12. Steve says:

    bullshit

    As featured on NBC-TV’s Dateline
    (first aired Sunday, June 9, 2002)

    yep. totally debunked, good job, nyp.

  13. nyp says:

    I’m usually willing to toy with you. Not on this.

  14. Steve says:

    “With the skill of a master detective, Bryan Rigg reveals the surprising and largely unknown story of Germans of Jewish origins in the Nazi military. His work contributes to our understanding of the complexity of faith and identity in the Third Reich.”–Paula E. Hyman, Yale University, author of Gender and Assimilation in Modern Jewish History and The Jews of Modern France

    No toying. Fact is you were wrong.

  15. nyp says:

    Oh God, I can’t help it …
    The book you cite concerns Germans who did not consider themselves Jewish because they did not practice Judiasm, were not raised as Jews, and, in most cases, came from families that had abandoned Judiasm several generations previously. The paradox the book discusses is that because of the insanity of the Nazi racial purity laws, these men were considered Jews by the legal system because they had “mixed blood”; therefore, they had to apply for special exemptions from the Nuremburg laws. But they certainly did not and had not ever considered themselves to be Jews, and no non-insane society would have considered them to have been Jews. There were no Jews who supported the Nazi, although there were a number who collaborated during the War either to save their own lives or because they mistakenly thought that collaboration would spare their Jewish communities from further violence.
    You are a moron, and you really ought to stay away from this topic.

  16. Steve says:

    That book is only part of the whole, nyp.
    My own family still receive reparations from Germany.
    I have Armenian Jew blood.
    Those in Germany who did what they felt they needed to do to survive did so in spite of their beliefs. That book is only a scratch on the surface.
    If you refuse to accept the reality of history you are doomed to repeat it.

    You are an idiot if you think you have all the answers you freakin stuck up libby….know it all.

  17. Winston Smith says:

    What!? A government bureaucracy doesn’t care what the people that will actually be affected by its edicts think about about its decisions? Surely you jest?

    When the “swarms of officers” are never held accountable for their controlling bullshit, is it any wonder that the mere hoi polloi become frustrated and finally lash out? Would it surprise anyone here if the fedbots want the cattle ranchers in Nevada to fail, or at least be massively consolidated so they’re more easily controlled?

    Unfortunately, at this point, those that still believe the government is only trying to help them are probably will not pull their heads out until they are personally smacked in the face by growing tyranny. Of course, there will always be those that will be the cheerleaders for the govbots, no matter how evil they get.

    “If the Nazis take over Austria, I have no doubt, Herr Zeller, that you will be the entire trumpet section.”

  18. Steve says:

    “probably will not pull their heads out until they are personally smacked in the face by growing tyranny”

    1920 to 1933 or there about. Many thought they would be perfectly fine and remain in comfort as long as they simply “followed the law” these people were actually supporting the coming tyranny because they refused to question authority.

    Sound familiar?

  19. Athos says:

    “You are an idiot if you think you have all the answers you freakin stuck up libby….know it all”

    Steve, you speak for all of us, about all of them! Reality just isn’t their thing, is it?

  20. nyp says:

    Jews who were citizens of Finland fighting in their country’s army against an invasion by Stalinist Russia.

    It is very offensive to say that there were Jews who supported Nazism. You really should stop.

  21. Rincon says:

    No, just typical Conservative ranting and raving, unable to accept that genuine differences of opinion are the norm for humanity. If the ranchers don’t like the BLM, then let ’em find other jobs (tongue in cheek here), just like all of the unemployed are supposed to by conservative thinking. Unlike many of the unemployed, they aren’t being involuntarily dismissed and have time to find other professions. Do you think all private employers treat their employees better than the BLM treats ranchers?

  22. Milty says:

    “No, just typical Conservative ranting and raving, unable to accept that genuine differences of opinion are the norm for humanity.”

    200 professors at the University of Minnesota signed a letter stating that they objected to Condoleezza Rice speaking at the university about civil rights.

    Brandeis University invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali to give a speech, then she was disinvited because faculty and students protested.

    Whenever a conservative is scheduled to speak at a university, the faculty and students raise hell until the invitation is revoked. If the invitation isn’t revoked, protesters show up at the speech and try to shout down the speaker to ensure that his/her message isn’t heard.

    I think you’re singling out the wrong group for being “unable to accept that genuine differences of opinion are the norm for humanity.”

  23. Milty says:

    “It is very offensive to say that there were Jews who supported Nazism. You really should stop.”

    Does supporting the French Vichy government qualify as supporting Nazism?

    Does writing a letter of support for Nazi war criminal Bernard Fay qualify as supporting Nazism?

    http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/05/02/white-house-cites-nazi-supporter-gertrude-stein-in-jewish-heritage-month-proclamation/

  24. Rincon says:

    I agree that the Liberals do the same thing, but two wrongs don’t make a right.

  25. Steve says:

    nyp, as is typical for modern liberals, is refusing to see that people of Jewish religion in Germany were rather well off until the early 1930’s
    These people were middle class, in medical fields and shop owners community events and there were actual legal supports for them. Most of them lived in the cities and they tried to accept and live within the laws and traditions of the communities where they found themselves living.
    Its part of being a Jewish to show the people of the country they adopt how good a citizen they could be.
    With as long a time the Jews had lived in Germany, they developed roots and history, they didn’t want to lose all that. Also, contrary to most other places in Europe the Jews were doing well in Germany for the most part. As I point out those living in the metropolitan areas were middle class. Those in the rural areas were not so well off but they were in the minority of the Jewish population.
    The history nyp is denying is the fact these people would simply say to themselves “we follow the laws, so we have nothing to worry about” until they discovered the “laws” were out to get them, it became suddenly and painfully obvious in 1933. Up till then there was official encouragement to emigrate.
    There are things that family’s will discuss among themselves which do not make it past the modern day censors. We can see from nyp’s attitude on this just why much of the stories do not get told.

    They are small, human things, but they happened, and they do teach a lesson. One that today’s libs are ignoring. Never trust authority, always question authority, always doubt the response and seek to verify it. As we move along some of those same lines traveled in Germany in the early 1900’s, this becomes more and more important.

  26. Athos says:

    Rinny, If the federal enforcers are wrong, Cliven Bundy being a racist doesn’t make them right.

    Is that what you mean in your 8:55am, post?

  27. Rincon says:

    Milty pointed out correctly that Liberals are just as prone to “ranting and raving” as Conservatives. I was referring to his comment. I don’t really think Bundy is much of a racist after reading Steve’s complete quote from him. Politically incorrect for sure, but not racist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s