Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The greatest factor in food cost increases began long ago with ethanol subsidies that gave feed corn a higher value as a fuel supplement. Cattle grazed on public lands, especially the ones being disputed on the poorest quality grasslands on arid desert land have little impact on the overall food prices.
We, the people, still have right to access that land. For hunting, fishing, and other recreation. If loonies like you had your way, that would be gone.they get rid of the feds.Can't you answer or are you just being a lying libturd?
That's rich coming from the guy who won't answer my question despite me answering yours TWICE now.
What do the ranchers stand to gain if the land is turned over to the state?
seems simple to me, and yet you can't figure that out.
what does the fed get out of keeping ownership of the land over the state?
Well, for damned certain, you do not know. A great deal of Eastern Oregon is, indeed, high desert. One cow per 100 acres is the norm. That is about 6 cows per square mile. Yes, in a very big area, they do raise a lot of cows. But not that many compared to many other states.The greatest factor in food cost increases began long ago with ethanol subsidies that gave feed corn a higher value as a fuel supplement. Cattle grazed on public lands, especially the ones being disputed on the poorest quality grasslands on arid desert land have little impact on the overall food prices.
Oregon is "arid desert land?"
Who knew?
Ethanol has indeed harmed food prices, though corn as feed of cattle lost support decades ago, Grazing rights has a huge impact on beef prices, when cattle cannot graze, the expense rises, which is passed to the consumer.
I know, the democratic - socialist response is "let them eat tofu."
because that is what is happening on that land today? Are you sure?We, the people, still have right to access that land. For hunting, fishing, and other recreation. If loonies like you had your way, that would be gone.they get rid of the feds.Can't you answer or are you just being a lying libturd?
That's rich coming from the guy who won't answer my question despite me answering yours TWICE now.
What do the ranchers stand to gain if the land is turned over to the state?
seems simple to me, and yet you can't figure that out.
what does the fed get out of keeping ownership of the land over the state?
but they aren't asking to have it privatized are they?The ranchers, most of them, do not have enough land to run a successful ranching operation without the cheap federal grazing. When the land passed to private ownership, their financial base would be gone, and the people that bought up those lands would then be able to pick up these ranches for pennies on the dollar. Oh yes, Kosher is really looking out for the interests of the Eastern Oregon Ranchers. I bet that she, like the Bundy's, is a parasite living off the rest of us that pay taxes. Remember, Ammon Bundy has this very large outstanding loan from the federal government, that he has no intention of paying back. And who is financing these fellows? Even those of us making good wages don't take this kind of time off without financial repercussions. And there is a bunch of them out there. Where are they getting their money?
Over 80% of Oregon BLM lands are dedicated to cattle grazing
This thread is full of links to support my thread. They include statements from the local mayor, sheriff, Governor of Oregon, a town hall meeting with a show of hands vote asking the militia to leave, and numerous local news editorials and opinion articles.
It is you side that lacks backup for your claims. No matter how often those links are posted you just ignore them.
Here is one from Oregon State University confirming that over 80% of BLM lands in Oregon are dedicated and leased for cattle grazing, leaving only 20% to be used for other purposes. Yet the ranchers want more. They have 80% but want more, and now they want other lands like wildlife refuges.
people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm
You have not been there, I have.The greatest factor in food cost increases began long ago with ethanol subsidies that gave feed corn a higher value as a fuel supplement. Cattle grazed on public lands, especially the ones being disputed on the poorest quality grasslands on arid desert land have little impact on the overall food prices.
Oregon is "arid desert land?"
Who knew?
Ethanol has indeed harmed food prices, though corn as feed of cattle lost support decades ago, Grazing rights has a huge impact on beef prices, when cattle cannot graze, the expense rises, which is passed to the consumer.
I know, the democratic - socialist response is "let them eat tofu."
If the present drought ends, then there will be a greater number of permits issued. If, after this year, the drought continues, then the amount of permits will be reduced. The problem is that many are willing to destroy long term profitability for short term profits.Over 80% of Oregon BLM lands are dedicated to cattle grazing
At least they were when Obama entered office. The Junta is dedicated to reducing this number. That is the complaint of the ranchers.
This thread is full of links to support my thread. They include statements from the local mayor, sheriff, Governor of Oregon, a town hall meeting with a show of hands vote asking the militia to leave, and numerous local news editorials and opinion articles.
It is you side that lacks backup for your claims. No matter how often those links are posted you just ignore them.
Here is one from Oregon State University confirming that over 80% of BLM lands in Oregon are dedicated and leased for cattle grazing, leaving only 20% to be used for other purposes. Yet the ranchers want more. They have 80% but want more, and now they want other lands like wildlife refuges.
people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm
The 80% is declining, and rapidly. The Ranchers simply don't want the grazing land to decline.
They are not a militia, they are a group of armed thugs, and low-life losers.
What is a "militia" Comrade?
You have no idea, do you?
From Kosher's posts, she has not been in the high desert, either. In fact, I don't know of any of the Bundy supports here that have been more than a few feet off the main roads in that area.You have not been there, I have.The greatest factor in food cost increases began long ago with ethanol subsidies that gave feed corn a higher value as a fuel supplement. Cattle grazed on public lands, especially the ones being disputed on the poorest quality grasslands on arid desert land have little impact on the overall food prices.
Oregon is "arid desert land?"
Who knew?
Ethanol has indeed harmed food prices, though corn as feed of cattle lost support decades ago, Grazing rights has a huge impact on beef prices, when cattle cannot graze, the expense rises, which is passed to the consumer.
I know, the democratic - socialist response is "let them eat tofu."
so have threatened no one correct?From Kosher's posts, she has not been in the high desert, either. In fact, I don't know of any of the Bundy supports here that have been more than a few feet off the main roads in that area.You have not been there, I have.The greatest factor in food cost increases began long ago with ethanol subsidies that gave feed corn a higher value as a fuel supplement. Cattle grazed on public lands, especially the ones being disputed on the poorest quality grasslands on arid desert land have little impact on the overall food prices.
Oregon is "arid desert land?"
Who knew?
Ethanol has indeed harmed food prices, though corn as feed of cattle lost support decades ago, Grazing rights has a huge impact on beef prices, when cattle cannot graze, the expense rises, which is passed to the consumer.
I know, the democratic - socialist response is "let them eat tofu."
if what they are doing is unconstitutional, then the feds should go in and take them out. The funny thing is the locals are using them for their position and back them, and with that, the feds are at a crossroads. I think the militia folks would need some lawyers to move forward, not sure their plan though. As does no one.
oh well, it is what they are willing to do for their businesses and fellow citizens. Is it legal to rearrest the Hammonds or whatever their name was?if what they are doing is unconstitutional, then the feds should go in and take them out. The funny thing is the locals are using them for their position and back them, and with that, the feds are at a crossroads. I think the militia folks would need some lawyers to move forward, not sure their plan though. As does no one.
What Bundy et al are doing is illegal. How we ended up in a position that beef production is dependant on federal land is another story; but sadly we are. Obama has goals that are sharply in conflict with the well being of the nation, and denying grazing rights is one of the many ways that he is waging his war on the middle class. The real problem is that the ranchers have little legal recourse.
Yes, unjust, but perfectly legal, under anti-terrorist laws that people like you unwisely put into place.oh well, it is what they are willing to do for their businesses and fellow citizens. Is it legal to rearrest the Hammonds or whatever their name was?if what they are doing is unconstitutional, then the feds should go in and take them out. The funny thing is the locals are using them for their position and back them, and with that, the feds are at a crossroads. I think the militia folks would need some lawyers to move forward, not sure their plan though. As does no one.
What Bundy et al are doing is illegal. How we ended up in a position that beef production is dependant on federal land is another story; but sadly we are. Obama has goals that are sharply in conflict with the well being of the nation, and denying grazing rights is one of the many ways that he is waging his war on the middle class. The real problem is that the ranchers have little legal recourse.
Well, for damned certain, you do not know. A great deal of Eastern Oregon is, indeed, high desert. One cow per 100 acres is the norm. That is about 6 cows per square mile. Yes, in a very big area, they do raise a lot of cows. But not that many compared to many other states.
You have not been there, I have.
No, it's not. OR is lying again.OK. Let's follow what would happen if the loonies get their demands. So, the Federal government cedes the lands to the states. Then the state government has a bad budget year and decides that the lands are nothing but a financial drain, and sells them off. Are the ranchers going to buy them? No way, they simply do not have the money. So who does? The Saudis, Chinese, and Japanese. Now the land that the ranchers previously grazed their cattle on is in private ownership, and they have to pay over 10 times as much per head to graze their cows on that land. That is the present ratio of private grazing fees compared to federal grazing fees.
Now everyone has the right to hunt on the government land open to hunting, provided they have the tags. Once that land is in private ownership, you will see most of it as fee hunting only. And the best of it will be reserved for 'hunting clubs' whose membership is from foreign nations. Same for fishing. We already have hundreds of square miles of private land tied up this way in Oregon.
This is what the Bundy's and people like Kosher are working for.
If the present drought ends, then there will be a greater number of permits issued. If, after this year, the drought continues, then the amount of permits will be reduced. The problem is that many are willing to destroy long term profitability for short term profits.
Over 80% of Oregon BLM lands are dedicated to cattle grazing
This thread is full of links to support my thread. They include statements from the local mayor, sheriff, Governor of Oregon, a town hall meeting with a show of hands vote asking the militia to leave, and numerous local news editorials and opinion articles.there you go, nothing.The locals are not backing them and the feds are not at a crossroads. Both the locals and the feds are keeping the crisis is perspective and steering away from violence or an attitude that immediate action must be taken. It is the middle of winter and the Wildlife Refuge complex is closed for the winter. There is no rush to remove the trespassers and a strategy of waiting out the situation is preferred by both locals and feds.if what they are doing is unconstitutional, then the feds should go in and take them out. The funny thing is the locals are using them for their position and back them, and with that, the feds are at a crossroads. I think the militia folks would need some lawyers to move forward, not sure their plan though. As does no one.What were the terrorists planning when they brought guns to an alleged protest?
What "terrorists?"
You're deranged, filled with bloodlust and bile.
Bringing guns and dressing up as soldiers. calling yourselves a militia and threatening to fight, kill and die for their protest cause is what made these protesters terrorist and invited a gunfight.
They are a militia. I think their approach is wrong, but their position is right. Obama is waging war on the food supply, ranchers are caught in the cross-fire of the administration dedicated to making food too expensive for people to afford.
It is you side that lacks backup for your claims. No matter how often those links are posted you just ignore them.
Here is one from Oregon State University confirming that over 80% of BLM lands in Oregon are dedicated and leased for cattle grazing, leaving only 20% to be used for other purposes. Yet the ranchers want more. They have 80% but want more, and now they want other lands like wildlife refuges.
people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm
