Cliven Bundy

[Seth]

The courts have ruled he vacated his claims when he failed to act on them over decades of formal notification from the owners representatives, the BLM and the courts.

Fuck the court. The BLM acted illegally...

So are we fucking justice, or are we invoking it??

Invoking it. This is ripe for the Supreme Court.

Well get on with it then. How long does the hick want?

As long as it takes. Now that the BLM has actually done something other than wave court orders at him he's got a reason to appeal.

[Hermit]

Fuck the court. The BLM acted illegally in reducing his allotments.

So, you clearly think you are the final legal arbiter in the US...

Such puffed-up arrogant codswallop...

Meh. Lower courts fuck up all the time. That's why we have a Supreme Court, which is the final legal arbiter.

This is ripe for the Supreme Court.

The final arbiter has already decided. For instance:

FT. LEAVENWORTH R. CO. v. LOWE, 114 U.S. 525 (1885)

...the United States possessed, on the adoption of the constitution, an immense domain lying north and west of the Ohio river, acquired as the result of the revolutionary war, from Great Britain, or by cessions from Virginia, Massachusetts, and Connecticut; and, since the adoption of the constitution, they have, by cession from foreign countries, come into the ownership of a territory still larger, lying between the Mississippi river and the Pacific ocean, and out of these territories several states have been formed and admitted into the Union. The proprietorship of the United States in large tracts of land within these states has remained after their admission.

LIGHT v. U. S., 220 U.S. 523 (1911)

...the nation is an owner, and has made Congress the principal agent to dispose of its property. . . . Congress is the body to which is given the power to determine the conditions upon which the public lands shall be disposed of.' Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U.S. 126 , 49 L. ed. 412, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 211. 'The government has, with respect to its own lands, the rights of an ordinary proprietor to maintain its possession and to prosecute trespassers. It may deal with such lands precisely as a private individual may deal with his farming property.

Inconvenient facts for you, I know, but the decisions of the final legal arbiter leave you with only two options. 1: Do what you normally do - ignore them. 2: Mobilise your brownshirts and start a rebellion.

[Seth]

Fuck the court. The BLM acted illegally in reducing his allotments.

So, you clearly think you are the final legal arbiter in the US...

Such puffed-up arrogant codswallop...

Meh. Lower courts fuck up all the time. That's why we have a Supreme Court, which is the final legal arbiter.

This is ripe for the Supreme Court.

The final arbiter has already decided. For instance:

FT. LEAVENWORTH R. CO. v. LOWE, 114 U.S. 525 (1885)

...the United States possessed, on the adoption of the constitution, an immense domain lying north and west of the Ohio river, acquired as the result of the revolutionary war, from Great Britain, or by cessions from Virginia, Massachusetts, and Connecticut; and, since the adoption of the constitution, they have, by cession from foreign countries, come into the ownership of a territory still larger, lying between the Mississippi river and the Pacific ocean, and out of these territories several states have been formed and admitted into the Union. The proprietorship of the United States in large tracts of land within these states has remained after their admission.

LIGHT v. U. S., 220 U.S. 523 (1911)

...the nation is an owner, and has made Congress the principal agent to dispose of its property. . . . Congress is the body to which is given the power to determine the conditions upon which the public lands shall be disposed of.' Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U.S. 126 , 49 L. ed. 412, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 211. 'The government has, with respect to its own lands, the rights of an ordinary proprietor to maintain its possession and to prosecute trespassers. It may deal with such lands precisely as a private individual may deal with his farming property.

Inconvenient facts for you, I know, but the decisions of the final legal arbiter leave you with only two options. 1: Do what you normally do - ignore them. 2: Mobilise your brownshirts and start a rebellion.

Again, the ultimate question of whether or not the mandates to surrender title to unappropriated lands in the west are constitutional has not yet been resolved.

Besides, as you note, the land belongs to "the nation" and Congress is but an agent, so Congress can, at it's will, choose to rectify this great wrong by turning over title to all federal lands except those expressly mentioned in the Constitution itself, to the several states.

No fat lady singing yet....

[piscator]

Again, the ultimate question of whether or not the mandates to surrender title to unappropriated lands in the west are constitutional has not yet been resolved.

Besides, as you note, the land belongs to "the nation" and Congress is but an agent, so Congress can, at it's will, choose to rectify this great wrong by turning over title to all federal lands except those expressly mentioned in the Constitution itself, to the several states.

No fat lady singing yet....

[Gallstones]

Study Finds Sage Grouse Doing Better on Grazed Lands

Typically, nesting success tends to be related to vegetation height, which would normally be lessened by grazing. But this study found that “nest success was higher for nests in pastures with livestock concurrently present (59 percent) than pastures without livestock (38 percent).” The study also found “no direct negative impacts (e.g., trampling) of livestock on nesting sage-grouse.”

In addition, the study found that brood success in the first two weeks after hatching was better for those chicks that hatched in pastures with livestock (79 percent) than without (61 percent).

...
The study area included a land mix of about 54 percent private, 36 percent BLM and 10 percent state, spreading east from the Powder River to the South Dakota border and south from the Powderville Road to the Wyoming border.

...
Foster said her big takeaway from the study was simple: “If every place was like Carter County then we wouldn’t have a sage grouse problem.”

The Study

[Tero]

Whee! More grouse for us to shoot! Bring me critters, I wanna shoot critters.

[Gallstones]

Whee! More grouse for us to shoot! Bring me critters, I wanna shoot critters.

Sage Grouse Season

Closed West of the Continental Divide
Bag limit 2 daily. Possession limit is two times the daily bag limit.

You are quite childish, but are you vegan?

[piscator]

Cows don't eat sagebrush, forbs, and bugs, therefore don't compete with sage-obligate sage hens for food.
The authors of the Montana F&W/BLM study stated the mechanism of observed higher sage grouse nesting success in occupied vs unoccupied pastures is "Unknown". It could be a result of cattleman predator control, dung beetles, cattle-created clearings in the sagebrush and grasses which lends to increased observability in some areas (and paradoxically confounds observations)... They just don't know (yet).




Interesting natural history from Wiki:

Preferred habitat[edit]

Greater Sage-Grouse are totally dependent on sagebrush-dominated habitats. Sagebrush is a crucial component of their diet year-round, and Greater Sage-Grouse select sagebrush almost exclusively for cover.[17] Because their habitat and cover requirements are inseparably tied to sagebrush, they will be discussed together.

Breeding: Open areas such as swales, irrigated fields, meadows, burns, roadsides, and areas with low, sparse sagebrush cover are used as leks.[18] Of 45 leks, Patterson [17] reported that 11 were on windswept ridges or exposed knolls, 10 were in flat sagebrush, 7 were in bare openings, and the remaining 17 were on various other site types. Leks are usually surrounded by areas with 20 to 50% sagebrush cover, with sagebrush no more than 1 foot (30.5 cm) tall.

When not in leks, Greater Sage-Grouse disperse to the surrounding areas.[14] Wallestad and Schladweiler[19] studied habitat selection of male greater sage grouse in central Montana during breeding season and recorded sagebrush height and canopy cover at 110 daytime feeding and loafing sites of cocks. Eighty percent of the locations occurred in sagebrush with a canopy cover of 20–50%. In another Montana study,[20] sagebrush cover averaged 30% on a cock-use area, and no cocks were observed in areas of less than 10% canopy cover.

Some females probably travel between leks. In Mono County, California, the home range of marked female Greater Sage-Grouse during one month of the breeding season was 750 to 875 acres (300–350 ha), enough area to include several active leks.[21]

Nesting: Within a week to ten days following breeding, the hen builds a nest in the vicinity of the lek. Hens usually nest near the lekking grounds,[16] but some hens have been noted to fly as far as 12 to 20 miles (19–32 km) to favorable nesting sites.[13][22]

Quality of nesting habitat surrounding the lek is the single most important factor in population success. Adequacy of cover is critical for nesting. There can be too little: where 13% was the average percent total crown cover on Idaho range, nests were located where average cover was 17%. No Greater Sage-Grouse hens nested in the most arid, open areas with less than 10% total shrub cover. There can be too much: average shrub cover at 87 nest sites was 18.4%, and in more dense cover, Greater Sage-Grouse did not nest where total shrub cover was greater than 25%.[23] In Utah no nests occurred where threetip sagebrush cover exceeded 35%.[9]

Sagebrush forms the nesting cover for most Greater Sage-Grouse nests throughout the West with concealment being the basic requirement.[24] Rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.) is occasionally used for nesting cover with greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) and shadscale (Atriplex canescens) being rarely used.[17]

Greater Sage-Grouse prefer relatively tall sagebrush with an open canopy for nesting. In Utah, 33% of 161 nests were under silver sagebrush that was 14 to 25 inches (36–63.5 cm) tall, while big sagebrush of the same height accounted for 24% of nests.[9] In a threetip sagebrush (A. tripartata) habitat averaging 8 inches (20 cm) in height, hens selected the tallest plants for nesting cover. Similarly, Patterson [17] reported that in Wyoming, 92% of Greater Sage-Grouse nests in Wyoming big sagebrush were in areas where vegetation was 10 to 20 inches (25–51 cm) tall and cover did not exceed 50%.

In Montana, Wallestad and Pyrah [25] compared sagebrush characteristics around 31 successful and 10 unsuccessful nests. Successful nests had greater than average sagebrush cover surrounding the nest and were located in stands with a higher average canopy cover (27%) than unsuccessful nests (20%). Difference was significant at the 0.005 level. They also found the average height of sagebrush cover over all nests was 15.9 inches (40.4 cm) as compared to an average height of 9.2 inches (23.4) cm in adjacent areas (significant at 0.005 level).

During the nesting season, cocks and hens without nests use "relatively open" areas for feeding, and roost in "dense" patches of sagebrush.[18][23]

Brood rearing: Sagebrush is an essential part of Greater Sage-Grouse brood habitat. An interspersion of sagebrush densities, from scattered to dense, are utilized by broods throughout the summer. Broods can be grouped into two categories: those that remain in sagebrush types through the summer and those that shift from sagebrush types in mid-summer and later return to sagebrush.

Throughout the summers of 1968–1969 in a study in Montana, areas that received the greatest amount of utilization by Greater Sage-Grouse broods were areas of sagebrush density characterized as scattered (1–10%) and common (10–25%). Scattered sagebrush received heaviest utilization in June. "Common" sagebrush was utilized heavily throughout the summer. "Dense" sagebrush had greatest use during late August and early September; "rare" sagebrush cover received greatest use in July and August.

Combined data for both years of the study at brood sites showed an average sagebrush cover of 14% during June, 12% during July, 10% during August and 21% during September, which reflects the vegetational types utilized by broods during the summer. Height of sagebrush at brood sites ranged mainly between 6 to 18 inches (15.2–45.7 cm).[8] In 158 Montana locations, young Greater Sage-Grouse broods used areas of low plant height 9 to 15 inches (23–38 cm)) and density, while older broods and adults used areas where plants were taller (7 to 25 inches (18–63.5 cm).[26]

Early in summer the size of the area used by Greater Sage-Grouse hens with broods in Idaho seemed to depend upon the interspersion of sagebrush types that provided an adequate amount of food and cover. Areas with sagebrush in scattered densities, with occasional clumps in the common to dense categories, appeared to be preferred. In their daily activity, broods tended to use more open sites for feeding and to seek more dense clumps of sagebrush for roosting.

Cover types used by hens with broods typically had greater availability of forbs during periods of high use, but differences in availability between areas influenced use of cover types, movements, and diets.

In Oregon, the Greater Sage-Grouse hens at Jackass Creek selectively used sites with forb cover greater than typically found there and similar to that generally available to broods at Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge. This amount of forb cover (12–14%) may represent the minimum needed for Greater Sage-Grouse brood habitat in Oregon.[7]

Succulence of their favored foods appears to be a key to Greater Sage-Grouse movements.[23] As plants mature and dry, the grouse move to areas still supporting succulent vegetation. A delay in maturing of forbs has a noticeable effect on bird movements.[18]

Broodless: A study by Gregg and others [27] in Oregon revealed differences in chronology of summer movements and cover types used between broodless hens and hens with broods. Broodless hens gathered in flocks and remained separate from but in the vicinity of hens with broods during early summer. However, broodless hens moved to meadows earlier in summer and used a greater diversity of cover types than hens with broods perhaps because dietary needs of broodless hens might be less specific than those of hens with broods.

A winter-use area appears to be both a key habitat segment and a major factor in Greater Sage-Grouse distribution over a large area.[20] The best winter habitat is below snowline, where sagebrush is available all winter.[22] Dalke and others [28] reported wintering grounds of Greater Sage-Grouse in Idaho were usually where snow accumulation was less than 6 inches (15 cm). In areas of deep snow, Greater Sage-Grouse winter where sagebrush has grown above the snow level.[29]

Greater Sage-Grouse appear to select areas of little or no slope. In a Colorado study, nearly 80% of Gunnison Sage-Grouse winter use of 500 square miles (1,252 km²) of sagebrush was on less than 35 square miles (87 km²): on flat areas where sagebrush projected above the snow, or on south- or west-facing sites of less than 5% slope, where sagebrush was sometimes quite short but still accessible.[15] In Montana, prime wintering areas were flat, large expanses of dense sagebrush; winter home ranges of 5 Greater Sage-Grouse females in Montana varied from 2,615 to 7,760 acres (1,050–3,100 ha) during 2 different years.[20]

Winter-use areas are determined by amount of snow rather than affinity to a particular site. Majority of winter observations are in sagebrush with more than 20% canopy coverage. Species and subspecies of sagebrush that seem to be preferred by grouse in the winter are black sagebrush, low sagebrush, and some subspecies of big sagebrush.[30]
Food habits[edit]

Adults: The importance of sagebrush in the diet of adult Greater Sage-Grouse is impossible to overestimate. Numerous studies have documented its year-round use by Greater Sage-Grouse.[5][6][14][17][18][24] A Montana study, based on 299 crop samples, showed that 62% of total food volume of the year was sagebrush. Between December and February it was the only food item found in all crops. Only between June and September did sagebrush constitute less than 60% of the Greater Sage-Grouse diet.[14] Sage-grouse select sagebrush species differentially. Greater Sage-Grouse in Antelope Valley, California, browsed black sagebrush more frequently than the more common big sagebrush.[6] Young and Palmquist[31] state the browse of black sagebrush is highly preferred by Greater Sage-Grouse in Nevada. In southeastern Idaho, black sagebrush was preferred as forage.[30]

Among the big sagebrush subspecies, basin big sagebrush is less nutritious and higher in terpenes than either mountain or Wyoming big sagebrush. Sage-grouse prefer the other two subspecies to basin big sagebrush.[29] In a common garden study done in Utah, Welch, Wagstaff and Robertson [32] found Greater Sage-Grouse preferred mountain big sagebrush over Wyoming and basin big sagebrush. However, when leaves and buds of the preferred species became limited, the birds shifted to the lesser-liked plants. The authors concluded the birds, while expressing preference, are capable of shifting their eating habits.

Sage-grouse lack a muscular gizzard and cannot grind and digest seeds; they must consume soft-tissue foods.[14] Apart from sagebrush, the adult Greater Sage-Grouse diet consists largely of herbaceous leaves, which are utilized primarily in late spring and summer. Additionally, Greater Sage-Grouse use perennial bunchgrasses for food.[33]

Sage-grouse are highly selective grazers, choosing only a few plant genera. Dandelion (Taraxacum spp.), legumes (Fabaceae), yarrow (Achillea spp.) and wild lettuce (Lactuca spp.) account for most of their forb intake.[29] Martin [26] found that from July to September, dandelion comprised 45% of Greater Sage-Grouse intake; sagebrush comprised 34%. Collectively, dandelion, sagebrush, and two legume genera (Trifolium and Astragalus) contributed more than 90% of the Greater Sage-Grouse diet. Insects are a minor diet item for adult Greater Sage-Grouse. Martin and others reported insects comprised 2% of the adult Greater Sage-Grouse diet in spring and fall and 9% in summer. Sagebrush made up 71% of the year-round diet.[34]

Prelaying females: Herbaceous dicots are used heavily by females before egg laying and may be essential for Greater Sage-Grouse nutrition because of their high protein and nutrient content.[33]

Favored foods of prelaying and brood-rearing Greater Sage-Grouse hens in Oregon are common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), goatsbeard (Tragopogon dubius), western yarrow (Achillea millefolium), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola) and sego lily (Calochortus macrocarpus).[35]

Juveniles: In their first week of life, Greater Sage-Grouse chicks consume primarily insects, especially ants and beetles.[17] Their diet then switches to forbs, with sagebrush gradually assuming primary importance. In a Utah study, forbs composed 54 to 60% of the summer diet of juvenile Greater Sage-Grouse, while the diet of adult birds was 39 to 47% forbs.[36]

A Wyoming study evaluated effects of eliminating insects from the diet of newly hatched Greater Sage-Grouse chicks. All chicks hatched in captivity and not provided insects died between the ages of 4 and 10 days, whereas all chicks fed insects survived the first ten days. Captive Greater Sage-Grouse chicks required insects for survival until they were at least three weeks old. Chicks more than three weeks old survived without insects, but their growth rates were lowered significantly, indicating insects were still required for normal growth after three weeks of age. As quantity of insects in the diet increased, survival and growth rates also increased up to 45 days, the length of the experiment.[37]

In a study conducted in Idaho, Klebenow and Gray measured food items for juvenile Greater Sage-Grouse for each age class, classes being defined by weeks since birth. In the first week insects were very important – 52% of the total diet. Beetles, primarily family Scarabaeidae, were the main food item. Beetles were taken by all other age classes of chicks, but in smaller amounts. All ages fed upon ants and while the volume was generally low, ants were found in most of the crops. After week 3, insect volume dropped and stayed at a lower level throughout all the age classes, fluctuating but always under 25%.[38]

Forbs were the major plant food of the chicks. Harkness gilia (Leptosiphon harknessii) was the main forb species in the 1st week and then steadily decreased. It was not found in the diet after 6 weeks. Loco (Arabis convallarius) and common dandelion were important food items for most of the collection period and occurred with generally high frequencies. Common dandelion was the most abundant food item and the mainstay of the chicks. At 6 weeks of age, goatsbeard reached its peak in the diet and sego lily was found in greatest volume a week later. These 5 species were the most important forbs.

With plants like common dandelion and goatsbeard, all aboveground parts of the plant were sometimes eaten. The stems, however, were not of main importance. The reproductive parts, mainly buds, flowers, and capsules, were the only parts taken from some of the other species. Conversely, leaves were the only parts of sagebrush found in the crops. Leaves and flowers of the species listed above and other dicots contained higher amounts of crude protein, calcium, and phosphorus than sagebrush and may be important in Greater Sage-Grouse diets for these reasons.[33]

Water: Greater Sage-Grouse apparently do not require open water for day-to-day survival if succulent vegetation is available. They utilize free water if it is available, however. Sage-grouse distribution is apparently seasonally limited by water in some areas. In summer, Greater Sage-Grouse in desert regions occur only near streams, springs, and water holes. In winter in Eden Valley, Wyoming, they have been observed regularly visiting partially frozen streams to drink from holes in the ice.[24]

[Seth]

Cows don't eat sagebrush, forbs, and bugs, therefore don't compete with sage-obligate sage hens for food.
The authors of the Montana F&W/BLM study stated the mechanism of observed higher sage grouse nesting success in occupied vs unoccupied pastures is "Unknown". It could be a result of cattleman predator control, dung beetles, cattle-created clearings in the sagebrush and grasses which lends to increased observability in some areas (and paradoxically confounds observations)... They just don't know (yet).

Well, given the fact that cattle have been grazing on the habitat for 140 years or so, and the only remaining habitat that exists is land that's been grazed for more than a century, whereas other habitat has been eaten up by development and other activities, empirically I'd say that it's rational to take the position of "don't fuck with it unless and until you know what the fuck you're doing, lest you make it worse."

If it happens to be true (and it is appearing to be more and more every day) that proper cattle grazing techniques ENHANCE sage-grouse habitat and species survival, then knee-jerk eco-fascist anti-cattle reactions of driving cows off the range will do exactly the opposite of what is desired.

This is why we favor science over eco-fascist propaganda and disinformation.

[piscator]

Cows don't eat sagebrush, forbs, and bugs, therefore don't compete with sage-obligate sage hens for food.
The authors of the Montana F&W/BLM study stated the mechanism of observed higher sage grouse nesting success in occupied vs unoccupied pastures is "Unknown". It could be a result of cattleman predator control, dung beetles, cattle-created clearings in the sagebrush and grasses which lends to increased observability in some areas (and paradoxically confounds observations)... They just don't know (yet).

Well, given the fact that cattle have been grazing on the habitat for 140 years or so, and the only remaining habitat that exists is land that's been grazed for more than a century, whereas other habitat has been eaten up by development and other activities, empirically I'd say that it's rational to take the position of "don't fuck with it unless and until you know what the fuck you're doing, lest you make it worse."

If it happens to be true (and it is appearing to be more and more every day) that proper cattle grazing techniques ENHANCE sage-grouse habitat and species survival, then knee-jerk eco-fascist anti-cattle reactions of driving cows off the range will do exactly the opposite of what is desired.

This is why we favor science over eco-fascist propaganda and disinformation.

Cattle are still an exotic species

But even researchers who have found grazing benign in some places would not want to see it everywhere. Thomas J. Stohlgren, an ecologist with the US Geological Survey in Fort Collins, Colorado, says that in regions like the Great Plains, which evolved with thundering herds of bison, grazing is probably fine. However, his current research in Utah's Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument makes him suspect that grazing is damaging in regions like the Great Basin, where large grazing herbivores were not present historically and the soil is covered by biologically active cryptobiotic (microbial) crusts. Cattle ranching is compatible with conservation only if rare habitats are conserved, he says. “For cows and conservation to mix, we have to know where those hot spots are and protect them—and I don't think we've done a very good job of that.”

Environmental advocate Joy Belsky, a grassland ecologist with the Oregon Natural Desert Association in Portland, states the case more strongly. To the question of whether cows and conservation can mix, she replies, “In the United States, no. Especially in the arid West—the Intermountain West, the Southwest.” Because cattle evolved in cool, wet areas of Europe and Asia, she says, in the Great Basin and the Southwest they search for the wettest areas they can find. That is why, she continues, “you hear so much about damage to riparian areas.” And like Stohlgren, she notes that cattle crush cryptobiotic crusts, a key component of Great Basin ecosystems.

Whether ranching should continue in the American West is ultimately not a scientific question but one of cultural values, says Thomas L. Fleischner, a conservation biologist who chaired the Society for Conservation Biology's public lands grazing committee. He's suspicious of anybody who “has a blanket answer that grazing is totally good or totally bad across the board,” he says. Whether ranching and conservation are compatible is an unanswerable question “until grounded in a particular landscape—and it depends what you mean by conservation.” However, letting an alien species like cattle remain smack in the middle of Western ecosystems does not fit his definition of restoring native biological diversity. Although Fleischner, who teaches at Prescott College in Arizona, would choose well-managed ranches over thousand-home subdivisions any day, “that doesn't mean that ranching is compatible in a long-term sense with maintenance of biological diversity—it just means it's a lesser of evils.” Presuming that cows must be part of the solution when figuring out how to preserve Western landscapes and biodiversity will end up generating a biased answer, he says, rather than a scientifically objective one.

When it comes to preserving open space so the buffalo can roam and the deer and the antelope can play, the forecast is uncertain. Even though many conservationists and ranchers agree that cows are preferable to condos, the cow as a conservation tool is not a solution everyone can accept. The Nature Conservancy's Peter Warren says the big pieces of land needed to preserve connections between the remaining wide-open spaces are owned and managed by ranching families. If he's right about that, it's hard to disagree when he says, “This conservation solution has got to work for them.”

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/co ... full#sec-6

[rainbow]

This is why we favor science over eco-fascist propaganda and disinformation.

Yeeee-ha!

[Tero]

Face it, Bundy is a thief and a bum. See:
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... azing.html

The total owed by all Oregon ranchers together is 18 000, just late, will be paid up.

[mistermack]

Face it, Bundy is a thief and a bum. See:
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... azing.html

The total owed by all Oregon ranchers together is 18 000, just late, will be paid up.

If he owes all that money, as confirmed by the courts, I don't see why they don't make him bankrupt.
He must have some assets that they can take.

[Svartalf]

Starting with his cattle...

[tattuchu]

Cliven! sounds like something Jerry Lewis would say in that voice of his.