BigHornRam
Well-known member
Hint for Buzz.......Colorado has banned leg hold traps already so in Roubideau Canyon, the huggers are halfway there.
Evaluate this article
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
BHR,
You're starting to sound as dumb as the cheese...and as paranoid.
THEY'RE going to getcha.
No the ranchers are not being used as tools...they are tools.
What chance do you honestly believe those ranchers have of getting what they want? What group would be using them as tools? They're dead in the water...just like your dumb theory that denying a drilling permit or limiting motorized access will lead to a loss of hunting and trapping in those areas.
Go sell crazy to someone else...what a wingnut.
You're starting to sound as dumb as the cheese...and as paranoid.
THEY'RE going to getcha.
No the ranchers are not being used as tools...they are tools.
What chance do you honestly believe those ranchers have of getting what they want? What group would be using them as tools? They're dead in the water...just like your dumb theory that denying a drilling permit or limiting motorized access will lead to a loss of hunting and trapping in those areas.
Go sell crazy to someone else...what a wingnut.
1_p, grazing allotments are not leased? I must mis-understand, so please educate me. I believe that you can construe some sort of "ownership" in the fact that the grazing rights are exclusive until the lease is up. Question: can grazing rights be taken away before a lease expires due to mis-management, etc?
Oak- It may seem like a semantics argument, but grazing allotments are not leased. I would think that 'leasing' would imply sole ownership/use, but that's just a guess. The permittee holds (or owns because they can sell it, etc) preference for the AUMs on an allotment. They are then required to make application for full, partial, or no use of those AUM's. Anyone else can also make application for those same AUM's, however the person with the preference, gets preference and thus gets to use those AUM's. In certain cases where not all the preference is being used, the BLM has the authority to grant use of those AUM's to any other applicant. So, no, grazing rights are not exclusive until the term of the permit is over.
Think of it like putting in for tags, the permittee 'owns' the highest number of preference points, thus they always get drawn if they put in their application.
Clear as mud?
PS- I didn't learn the above in a business class...
Think of it like putting in for tags, the permittee 'owns' the highest number of preference points, thus they always get drawn if they put in their application.
The short answer is yes, grazing permits can be taken away or put on hold before the permit expires for lots of reasons. Just to clarify, there are no grazing rights...
Clear as mud?
PS- I didn't learn the above in a business class...
BigHornRam
Well-known member
"What chance do you honestly believe those ranchers have of getting what they want?"
Based on Pointers post #14, and if the Granola's keep peppering the papers with faggy articles like the one Oak posted, I'd say the rancher(s) have a fairly good chance of getting what they want........at least for a little while.
Based on Pointers post #14, and if the Granola's keep peppering the papers with faggy articles like the one Oak posted, I'd say the rancher(s) have a fairly good chance of getting what they want........at least for a little while.
BuzzH
Well-known member
BHR,
Better stock up on tin foil for your hat...
Better stock up on tin foil for your hat...
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Buzz,
You think the author writes for Range Magazine? It's clear that the wilderness advocates are looking to compromise with the couple lease holders in the WSA in order to get Wilderness status. The article's intent is to make the compromise palatable to the granola's, to get their backing. Wilderness status will eliminate the treat of resource extraction in the area and damage caused by ORV use.......good deal right?
So the ranchers get motorized vehicle access to tend their cattle grandfathered to gain their support, not a big stretch. And like Pointer said, the language will be specific to what the ranchers can and can't do. The Selway-Bitterroot grandfathered in maintanence access to the irrigation dams to get it to go through. Similar compromise IMO.
You're getting 90% of what you want here Buzz.......sure you can't compromise a little like the granola's are willing to do?
You think the author writes for Range Magazine? It's clear that the wilderness advocates are looking to compromise with the couple lease holders in the WSA in order to get Wilderness status. The article's intent is to make the compromise palatable to the granola's, to get their backing. Wilderness status will eliminate the treat of resource extraction in the area and damage caused by ORV use.......good deal right?
So the ranchers get motorized vehicle access to tend their cattle grandfathered to gain their support, not a big stretch. And like Pointer said, the language will be specific to what the ranchers can and can't do. The Selway-Bitterroot grandfathered in maintanence access to the irrigation dams to get it to go through. Similar compromise IMO.
You're getting 90% of what you want here Buzz.......sure you can't compromise a little like the granola's are willing to do?
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Here's an older article from the High Country News by the same author Buzz. Looks like he's relocated to Grand Junction since then. Do a google search and you will find that most all his writing is pro enviroment/ anti oil and gas industry. Actually Buzz, you don't even need to compromise on this one. Oppose it and the cattle will still graze there, the ranchers will still have motor vehicle access. JMO however.
BTW check out the last paragraph in the story and tell me Magill isn't a political activist? How did last election work out for him?
New Mexicans take a stand against oil and gas
WESTERN ROUNDUP - March 29, 2004 by Bobby Magill
Otero Mesa as seen from Alamo Mountain near the Texas state line. Bobby Magill
The fight to keep drillers off Otero Mesa could set the tone for the November election
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO — When rancher Tweeti Blancett stood before 700 environmentalists at the end of January, she left the crowd speechless. Taking her stand in downtown Albuquerque’s KiMo Theatre, this former George W. Bush supporter ordered gas companies to stop trashing the state’s public lands. The crowd, not expecting an ardent advocate of public-lands protection to be a staunch Republican, sat in stunned silence.
After watching oil companies drill her San Juan County, N.M., grazing allotments into uselessness, in 2002 Blancett staged a lockout near Farmington to keep oil company trucks from crossing private property to reach public lands (HCN, 12/9/02: Cowboys fight oil and gas drillers). Now, she’s campaigning to keep coalbed methane drillers out of New Mexico’s Valle Vidal unit of the Carson National Forest (HCN, 3/1/04: Oil and gas drilling could oust elk – and Boy Scouts). But this particular rally was about protecting southern New Mexico’s Otero Mesa, the country’s last remaining tract of Chihuahuan Desert grassland (HCN, 9/10/01: Gas industry gambles on New Mexico Mesa).
After Blancett took her seat, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, D, stepped to the stage in a surprise appearance. The former secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy signed an executive order onstage, making it state policy to prevent oil and gas companies from drilling Otero Mesa. Richardson’s plan is more than just symbolic: With it, he prevents the state from granting permits for waste pits dug near oil and gas wells on Otero Mesa. At the same time, he directs state agencies to toughen criteria for granting water well permits for drillers and to implement strict protections on wildlife in the area.
Steve Capra, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance campaign coordinator, says he watched people cry as Richardson signed what he considers to be a symbol of hope.
Show me the money
When the Bureau of Land Management issued its final management plan for Otero Mesa in early January, it officially expanded oil and gas production in the area. By opening 105,000 acres, or 5 percent, of the mesa to limited drilling, and keeping the remaining 1.1 million acres relatively unregulated, the agency would allow gas companies to capitalize on an estimated 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas discovered when Roswell, N.M.-based Harvey E. Yates Company, or HEYCO, drilled several test wells on Otero Mesa in 1997.
But Bob Jones, a southern New Mexico rancher, says the oil companies that have already drilled wells on Otero Mesa have left "an awful mess" and threatened archaeological sites and the underlying aquifer. Jones is president of a conservative private-property group, the Paragon Foundation, which is better known for opposing wolf-reintroduction programs and advocating for public-lands ranching than for cooperating with environmentalists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He points out that the oil and gas companies showed no interest in discussing conservation with ranchers. But the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance did: Last year, former Wilderness Alliance executive director Jim Scarantino approached members of the Paragon Foundation, and people from the two organizations began to unofficially work together to preserve Otero Mesa.
"We know where the (Bush) administration is in this, and they’re trying to open all the Western federal lands for the oil companies to drill," Jones says. "When it comes to the oil companies, you just can’t get anything done with them because they feel like they don’t have to (work with you)."
On March 4, the Campaign to Protect America’s Lands reported that since 2000, oil magnate George Yates, part-owner of HEYCO, has donated $250,000 to the Republican Party. Not only that, National Environmental Strategies (NES), one of Yates’ lobbying firms, pays J. Steven Griles, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, $284,000 each year. According to the report, Griles receives that money as compensation for the value of clients that he sent to NES when he started to work for the federal government. Though Yates told the Associated Press that his campaign contributions, his connection to Griles and his fund-raising assistance to Vice President Dick Cheney had no influence on the BLM’s policy changes, not everyone is buying it.
"Those are crocodile tears," says Capra. "It’s a carefully choreographed answer between the BLM and the oil and gas industry." He also hopes Congress looks into the connections between Griles, Yates and Otero Mesa. "My hope is there will be an investigation into it. The report doesn’t hold a smoking gun."
Election wild card
The report — entitled Cash, Connections and Concessions: The Yates Family, the Bush Administration, and the Selling of Otero Mesa — may add fuel to the backlash against oil and gas drilling in the state, a backlash that could be felt at the polls next November.
"Our part of the world is a throwaway zone," says Blancett. "I think we’ve formed unholy alliances with people we never spoke to, much less worked with."
Like many Western states, New Mexico has traditionally been split between its conservative rural residents and Democratic-voting Hispanics and city-dwellers. But while Republican ranchers like Blancett are fed up with what they call Bush’s pro-drilling mania, State Land Commissioner Patrick Lyons and other prominent Republicans statewide are equally miffed at Gov. Bill Richardson’s policies on Otero Mesa, and they have vowed to fight back.
Next November, voters will be deciding a number of congressional seats, including that of pro-gas development Rep. Steve Pearce, R, in the southern part of the state, and northern New Mexico’s Rep. Tom Udall, D. In the oil-rich San Juan Basin, conservative San Juan County District Attorney Greg Tucker is challenging the environmentally friendly Udall.
Democrats hold a large majority in New Mexico, but the presidential race next fall is likely to be close: In 2000, Al Gore won the state by the narrowest margin of any state in the country. "We expect the 2004 election to be similar; it’s going to come down to a handful of votes," says Maggie Toulouse of the League of Conservation Voters. "We firmly believe New Mexico’s five electoral votes are going to decide this election."
The author writes from Taos, New Mexico.
The New Mexico Wilderness Alliance
www.nmwild.org, 505-843-8696
Oil and Gas Accountability Project
www.ogap.org, 970-259-3353
BTW check out the last paragraph in the story and tell me Magill isn't a political activist? How did last election work out for him?
New Mexicans take a stand against oil and gas
WESTERN ROUNDUP - March 29, 2004 by Bobby Magill
Otero Mesa as seen from Alamo Mountain near the Texas state line. Bobby Magill
The fight to keep drillers off Otero Mesa could set the tone for the November election
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO — When rancher Tweeti Blancett stood before 700 environmentalists at the end of January, she left the crowd speechless. Taking her stand in downtown Albuquerque’s KiMo Theatre, this former George W. Bush supporter ordered gas companies to stop trashing the state’s public lands. The crowd, not expecting an ardent advocate of public-lands protection to be a staunch Republican, sat in stunned silence.
After watching oil companies drill her San Juan County, N.M., grazing allotments into uselessness, in 2002 Blancett staged a lockout near Farmington to keep oil company trucks from crossing private property to reach public lands (HCN, 12/9/02: Cowboys fight oil and gas drillers). Now, she’s campaigning to keep coalbed methane drillers out of New Mexico’s Valle Vidal unit of the Carson National Forest (HCN, 3/1/04: Oil and gas drilling could oust elk – and Boy Scouts). But this particular rally was about protecting southern New Mexico’s Otero Mesa, the country’s last remaining tract of Chihuahuan Desert grassland (HCN, 9/10/01: Gas industry gambles on New Mexico Mesa).
After Blancett took her seat, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, D, stepped to the stage in a surprise appearance. The former secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy signed an executive order onstage, making it state policy to prevent oil and gas companies from drilling Otero Mesa. Richardson’s plan is more than just symbolic: With it, he prevents the state from granting permits for waste pits dug near oil and gas wells on Otero Mesa. At the same time, he directs state agencies to toughen criteria for granting water well permits for drillers and to implement strict protections on wildlife in the area.
Steve Capra, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance campaign coordinator, says he watched people cry as Richardson signed what he considers to be a symbol of hope.
Show me the money
When the Bureau of Land Management issued its final management plan for Otero Mesa in early January, it officially expanded oil and gas production in the area. By opening 105,000 acres, or 5 percent, of the mesa to limited drilling, and keeping the remaining 1.1 million acres relatively unregulated, the agency would allow gas companies to capitalize on an estimated 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas discovered when Roswell, N.M.-based Harvey E. Yates Company, or HEYCO, drilled several test wells on Otero Mesa in 1997.
But Bob Jones, a southern New Mexico rancher, says the oil companies that have already drilled wells on Otero Mesa have left "an awful mess" and threatened archaeological sites and the underlying aquifer. Jones is president of a conservative private-property group, the Paragon Foundation, which is better known for opposing wolf-reintroduction programs and advocating for public-lands ranching than for cooperating with environmentalists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He points out that the oil and gas companies showed no interest in discussing conservation with ranchers. But the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance did: Last year, former Wilderness Alliance executive director Jim Scarantino approached members of the Paragon Foundation, and people from the two organizations began to unofficially work together to preserve Otero Mesa.
"We know where the (Bush) administration is in this, and they’re trying to open all the Western federal lands for the oil companies to drill," Jones says. "When it comes to the oil companies, you just can’t get anything done with them because they feel like they don’t have to (work with you)."
On March 4, the Campaign to Protect America’s Lands reported that since 2000, oil magnate George Yates, part-owner of HEYCO, has donated $250,000 to the Republican Party. Not only that, National Environmental Strategies (NES), one of Yates’ lobbying firms, pays J. Steven Griles, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, $284,000 each year. According to the report, Griles receives that money as compensation for the value of clients that he sent to NES when he started to work for the federal government. Though Yates told the Associated Press that his campaign contributions, his connection to Griles and his fund-raising assistance to Vice President Dick Cheney had no influence on the BLM’s policy changes, not everyone is buying it.
"Those are crocodile tears," says Capra. "It’s a carefully choreographed answer between the BLM and the oil and gas industry." He also hopes Congress looks into the connections between Griles, Yates and Otero Mesa. "My hope is there will be an investigation into it. The report doesn’t hold a smoking gun."
Election wild card
The report — entitled Cash, Connections and Concessions: The Yates Family, the Bush Administration, and the Selling of Otero Mesa — may add fuel to the backlash against oil and gas drilling in the state, a backlash that could be felt at the polls next November.
"Our part of the world is a throwaway zone," says Blancett. "I think we’ve formed unholy alliances with people we never spoke to, much less worked with."
Like many Western states, New Mexico has traditionally been split between its conservative rural residents and Democratic-voting Hispanics and city-dwellers. But while Republican ranchers like Blancett are fed up with what they call Bush’s pro-drilling mania, State Land Commissioner Patrick Lyons and other prominent Republicans statewide are equally miffed at Gov. Bill Richardson’s policies on Otero Mesa, and they have vowed to fight back.
Next November, voters will be deciding a number of congressional seats, including that of pro-gas development Rep. Steve Pearce, R, in the southern part of the state, and northern New Mexico’s Rep. Tom Udall, D. In the oil-rich San Juan Basin, conservative San Juan County District Attorney Greg Tucker is challenging the environmentally friendly Udall.
Democrats hold a large majority in New Mexico, but the presidential race next fall is likely to be close: In 2000, Al Gore won the state by the narrowest margin of any state in the country. "We expect the 2004 election to be similar; it’s going to come down to a handful of votes," says Maggie Toulouse of the League of Conservation Voters. "We firmly believe New Mexico’s five electoral votes are going to decide this election."
The author writes from Taos, New Mexico.
The New Mexico Wilderness Alliance
www.nmwild.org, 505-843-8696
Oil and Gas Accountability Project
www.ogap.org, 970-259-3353
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Chirp, Chirp, Chirp.
Guess the rancher hater crowd here would rather let the oil/gas extractors in this area, than to side with the ranchers. Pretty sad......no wonder why nothing ever gets accomplished politically anymore.
Guess the rancher hater crowd here would rather let the oil/gas extractors in this area, than to side with the ranchers. Pretty sad......no wonder why nothing ever gets accomplished politically anymore.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Hey, is this area good sage grouse habitat? Magill's part in this is just phase one. Then let WWP move in for phase two. Starting to catch on yet Buzz and Oak?
Judge orders sage grouse protections reconsidered
By REBECCA BOONE of the Associated Press
BOISE, Idaho - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ignored expert advice when it decided to deny federal protection to the sage grouse and the agency must reconsider its decision, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
In a decision highly critical of the agency and its decision-making process, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill said the service also failed to use the “best science” available when deciding not give the declining species protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Winmill also found that a former Interior Department official charged with overseeing the Fish and Wildlife Service used pressure and intimidation tactics and even edited scientific conclusions to keep the birds from being listed as endangered. The judge condemned the agency's decision-making process, expressing doubt that it could be used effectively in any endangered species listing decision.
Joan Jewett, a spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Portland, Ore., said the agency had not yet seen the ruling and so she could not comment.
But sage grouse advocates were heartened.
“They separated out the science from the decision and that's fundamentally flawed. This ruling is just one more court ruling saying that the Bush administration is not following the Endangered Species Act,” said Laird Lucas, the attorney representing the Western Watersheds Project, which sued the agency last year over its listing decision. “I do believe the sage grouse will be listed soon.”
Sonya Jones, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation representing ranching, livestock and farming interests in Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon and Nevada, promised to appeal.
Jones said the Fish and Wildlife Service followed all the rules required by the Endangered Species Act in making its determination. Listing the bird could have harsh economic consequences, she said.
“We believe that this court got it wrong,” Jones said. “The court did not agree with (the agency's) decision, but as a matter of law, we believe the difference goes to the Fish and Wildlife Service ... If eventually sage grouse were to be listed then it would diminish the land available for grazing and force many livestock producers out of business.”
The states of Idaho, Wyoming and Colorado had sided with the Fish and Wildlife Service in the case, arguing in part that the states had spent a great deal of time and money creating their own conservation plans to protect grouse, and that those protection efforts were working. Those efforts justified the Fish and Wildlife Service decision, the states said.
Bill Myers, an attorney representing livestock and oil and gas interests and serving as local counsel for the states of Idaho and Wyoming, said his clients have not yet decided whether they will appeal.
The judge harshly criticized what he said was the “inexcusable conduct” of former Deputy Assistant Interior Secretary Julie MacDonald, who resigned in May. MacDonald intimidated Fish and Wildlife staffers, edited scientific conclusions and otherwise intervened in the listing process “to ensure that the ‘best science' supported a decision not to list the species,” Winmill said.
MacDonald's tactics have also been blasted in other court cases. In November, the Fish and Wildlife Service reversed seven rulings that had denied increased protection for imperiled species after an investigation found those actions were tainted by pressure from MacDonald.
Conservation and environmental groups predicted that several more of the Fish and Wildlife Services' listing decisions will be called into question because of Winmill's ruling.
“Basically there is a huge tidal wave of litigation coming down on the agency,” said Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity, a group that had watched the case closely and sued the Fish and Wildlife Service over other species. “It's still very much an open question whether Fish and Wildlife will take this ruling to heart and fundamentally get changed, or just participate in a coverup.”
Judge orders sage grouse protections reconsidered
By REBECCA BOONE of the Associated Press
BOISE, Idaho - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ignored expert advice when it decided to deny federal protection to the sage grouse and the agency must reconsider its decision, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
In a decision highly critical of the agency and its decision-making process, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill said the service also failed to use the “best science” available when deciding not give the declining species protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Winmill also found that a former Interior Department official charged with overseeing the Fish and Wildlife Service used pressure and intimidation tactics and even edited scientific conclusions to keep the birds from being listed as endangered. The judge condemned the agency's decision-making process, expressing doubt that it could be used effectively in any endangered species listing decision.
Joan Jewett, a spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife Service in Portland, Ore., said the agency had not yet seen the ruling and so she could not comment.
But sage grouse advocates were heartened.
“They separated out the science from the decision and that's fundamentally flawed. This ruling is just one more court ruling saying that the Bush administration is not following the Endangered Species Act,” said Laird Lucas, the attorney representing the Western Watersheds Project, which sued the agency last year over its listing decision. “I do believe the sage grouse will be listed soon.”
Sonya Jones, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation representing ranching, livestock and farming interests in Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon and Nevada, promised to appeal.
Jones said the Fish and Wildlife Service followed all the rules required by the Endangered Species Act in making its determination. Listing the bird could have harsh economic consequences, she said.
“We believe that this court got it wrong,” Jones said. “The court did not agree with (the agency's) decision, but as a matter of law, we believe the difference goes to the Fish and Wildlife Service ... If eventually sage grouse were to be listed then it would diminish the land available for grazing and force many livestock producers out of business.”
The states of Idaho, Wyoming and Colorado had sided with the Fish and Wildlife Service in the case, arguing in part that the states had spent a great deal of time and money creating their own conservation plans to protect grouse, and that those protection efforts were working. Those efforts justified the Fish and Wildlife Service decision, the states said.
Bill Myers, an attorney representing livestock and oil and gas interests and serving as local counsel for the states of Idaho and Wyoming, said his clients have not yet decided whether they will appeal.
The judge harshly criticized what he said was the “inexcusable conduct” of former Deputy Assistant Interior Secretary Julie MacDonald, who resigned in May. MacDonald intimidated Fish and Wildlife staffers, edited scientific conclusions and otherwise intervened in the listing process “to ensure that the ‘best science' supported a decision not to list the species,” Winmill said.
MacDonald's tactics have also been blasted in other court cases. In November, the Fish and Wildlife Service reversed seven rulings that had denied increased protection for imperiled species after an investigation found those actions were tainted by pressure from MacDonald.
Conservation and environmental groups predicted that several more of the Fish and Wildlife Services' listing decisions will be called into question because of Winmill's ruling.
“Basically there is a huge tidal wave of litigation coming down on the agency,” said Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity, a group that had watched the case closely and sued the Fish and Wildlife Service over other species. “It's still very much an open question whether Fish and Wildlife will take this ruling to heart and fundamentally get changed, or just participate in a coverup.”
BHR, I don't know what your point is? We were talking about Roubideau Canyon. You somehow leaped to Otero Mesa (nearly 4 years ago), then brought up how Dubya's lackeys ignored science when making the decision not to list sage-grouse. You're getting harder to understand than Elkchsr.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Is Roubideau Canyon good sage grouse habitat, Oak? I'm not surprised that you're having trouble following my point(s). Glad you're still lurking here though. Can you bury your ax with the ranchers long enough to get Roubideau wilderness status? Thanks in advance.
JoseCuervo
New member
Oak is correct, you sound a lot like The Cheese. Do you have a point that you are trying to connect with your ramblings?
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Oak,
The only issues you whine about more than ranchers here is oil and gas extraction and ORV use and abuse. Not assuming anything. If Roubideau isn't sage grouse habitat (I'll take your word on that), then maybe this area is a good place to drill for oil and gas, and wilderness designation is a bad idea. Agree or disagree? I personally would rather see oil/gas drilling there, than marginal places in Montana. But if the local people want to protect the area with wilderness designation, then I'm fine with that too.
The only issues you whine about more than ranchers here is oil and gas extraction and ORV use and abuse. Not assuming anything. If Roubideau isn't sage grouse habitat (I'll take your word on that), then maybe this area is a good place to drill for oil and gas, and wilderness designation is a bad idea. Agree or disagree? I personally would rather see oil/gas drilling there, than marginal places in Montana. But if the local people want to protect the area with wilderness designation, then I'm fine with that too.
JoseCuervo
New member
BigWhore,
do you have any concerns about welfare ranchers, oil and gas extraction, and fat-assed ATV'ers abusing our public lands?
Or do you not care about hunting enough to worry?
BuzzH
Well-known member
BHR,
Why do you feel the "local" people should have more say on how public lands are used/designated than all the other tax paying citizens who have a vested interest in THEIR PUBLIC LANDS?
Now I understand why you sit back and let public lands be run over by industry, welfare ranchers, etc. They're "locals", so they make the decisions FOR you.
What a clown.
Why do you feel the "local" people should have more say on how public lands are used/designated than all the other tax paying citizens who have a vested interest in THEIR PUBLIC LANDS?
Now I understand why you sit back and let public lands be run over by industry, welfare ranchers, etc. They're "locals", so they make the decisions FOR you.
What a clown.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
"Why do you feel the "local" people should have more say on how public lands are used/designated than all the other tax paying citizens who have a vested interest in THEIR PUBLIC LANDS?"
Because most all the other far removed tax paying citizens when faced with $4.00 gasoline will favor drilling in remote parts of THEIR PUBLIC LAND in Colorado.
Do you like Oak, oppose Wilderness designation for this canyon?
Because most all the other far removed tax paying citizens when faced with $4.00 gasoline will favor drilling in remote parts of THEIR PUBLIC LAND in Colorado.
Do you like Oak, oppose Wilderness designation for this canyon?
Similar threads
