How a Billionaire's Wife is Becoming the Mustangs' Messiah by Niki2

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The trouble is, many of Nevada's ranchers look upon wild horses as vermin, chomping grass that is meant for their cattle.

That's okay, I see many of Nevada's ranchers as vermin, breathing air meant for less obnoxious humans.

You DO realize that by these actions they've all but admitted tresspass-grazing, which amounts in some respects to downright theft, right ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2011 12:22 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You DO realize that by these actions they've all but admitted tresspass-grazing, which amounts in some respects to downright theft, right ?

-Frem

Nope. They're grazing on BLM land, per the article.

Quote:
But in Nevada's high deserts and extreme weather, most ranches are granted access to vast tracts of federal land for grazing. Pickens' original spread of 28 sq. mi. (72.5 sq km) gives her access to another 875 sq. mi. (2,266 sq km) of federal grazing land. And it is this public land — controlled by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) — that has become the battleground for Pickens and the cattlemen.

Pickens envisions Mustang Monument with a museum and lodging for visitors in futuristic teepee villages beside a creek from where they can view the roaming mustangs. Because her horse sanctuary will partly be on federal land, and because she is angling for federal help to keep the refuge running long after she is gone, Pickens needs approval from the BLM.

It appears Ms. Pickens wants to include 875 square miles of BLM land in her horse sanctuary. I suspect that ranching folks are concerned that, with no culling and no natural predators, the mustangs will grow to exceed the carrying capacity of the land and make it useless for running cattle.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2011 12:55 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

If I know Boone, the contract that allows them to graze the mustangs on BLM land will also coincidentally sign over the mineral and water rights to the land to Pickens...

The man's crafty as hell, but he ain't stupid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 7, 2011 6:14 PM

So throw em both off - or charge a per-head user fee that goes into the budget for maintainence of parks and preserves, simple, really.

Sounds to *ME* like the cattlemen are screaming a fit about having to share their "free lunch", you ask me - the same way some companies who've misused volunteer labor for profit get all snippy when called on it, Randian Ethics - which of itself is an oxymoron if there ever was one.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 12:00 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
So throw em both off - or charge a per-head user fee that goes into the budget for maintainence of parks and preserves, simple, really.

BLM charges $1.35 per Animal Unit Month (AUM) for grazing rights.

More info on grazing rights.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.1.html

The ranchers I've met in Montana generally run family operations and work long and hard to keep their land and herds. Folks tying up or overgrazing their BLM grazing to save horses or for whatever reason would probably force some of them to sell off land their family has owned for generations.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 5:22 PM

It is not THEIR grazing, it is not THEIR land, and it does not BELONG to them.
If it did, they've have a right to bitch.

Let's face it, this *IS* about having to share the free lunch - they're all capitalist until they have to share or compete, and then they start howling for the government to come protect them and their fucking profit, which sadly it all too often does.
(remember, union history, who's "side" the gov ALWAYS takes)

Yeah, that's being damn cruel and I know it, I am well-aware those are family farms, although I am not exactly buyin that poor downtrodden farmer bullshit given the profit margins involved here, mind you - profit margins subsidized by the government, via that free lunch (pun intended), cause you can't call it much else given how cheap that is in regard to bought fodder.

So I ain't exactly fuckin sympathetic to a bunch of dickheads who are crying bitter tears over having to share the nipple on a government tit, thank you very much.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 5:54 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

It is not THEIR grazing

They pay for it, so I'd say it is.

Quote:
it is not THEIR land

But it is land they lease. Did you ever rent an apartment? Did you consider it yours to use?

Quote:
and it does not BELONG to them.

But under BLM rules and the laws of the land, they have a right to use it if they pay for it.

And as to that, I'm sort'a wondering why an anarchist would support government ownership of the land, instead of letting the folks who would work it claim it, anyway.

How would you feel if some ultra-rich guy came in and bought up all the properties your security firm (you capitalist, you) works in, kicked all the tenants to the curb, and made a horse sanctuary out of it? That'd kind'a shut you down, wouldn't it? Does that seem fair to you?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 8, 2011 7:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And as to that, I'm sort'a wondering why an anarchist would support government ownership of the land, instead of letting the folks who would work it claim it, anyway.

I don't, but nor do I support the notion that it belongs to them cause they say it does, that's bullshit, the corporate domininion version of eminent domain and not a whit less immoral.

And if the lady with the horses pays the same fuckin fee, then she gets the same fuckin rights.

You don't expect disneyworld all to yourself just cause you bought a ticket, do you ?
Well, unless you're a Randroid, but I never took you for one, Geeze.

Now, if there are INSUFFICIENT RESOURCES to support both populations, that's a different thing, but this is coming across to me in the manner I have called it.

Funny thing on that whole theme of thought, when I (supposedly) first moved here the lady behind me started throwing a hissy cause this apartment was previously empty and she was concerned about her peace, quiet and privacy, and oh man did she throw a tantrum about it to the management, how dare you rent out another apartment in the building you rent mine from (notice the similarity here?)...
*snicker*
And the properly manager calmly told her that she was just a wee bit little late to be bringing THAT up, since I'd *been* living here for EIGHTEEN MONTHS - she shut the hell up real quick.
And now that she's realized that the primary security force for this place, who's very much invested in calm and quiet, lives right behind HER, she's all happy about it, what an irony, innit ?

So no, unless you bring me some hard data, I ain't buyin it Geeze, this is what I called it to be, and if you wanna say otherwise you gotta bring something besides rhetoric to the table.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 3:10 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Now, if there are INSUFFICIENT RESOURCES to support both populations, that's a different thing...

That's actually the point. Ranchers graze a variable number of cattle, differing amounts each year depending on how rain and weather has affected the range's ability to produce grass, and the herd stays within the carrying capacity of the land because they sell cattle off every year.

If you introduce horses to the same range, and don't control their numbers in some way, they'll reproduce until they eat all the available grass. Of course then Ms. Pickens can dip into petty cash and buy feed for them, but the ranchers generally need any hay they've grown and harvested for winter feed, and can't dip into their reserve.

And I don't know why you keep up with the "Corporate Dominion" crap. The corporations run feed lots, and couldn't care less about open range. The guys I've met run family operations and live in simple homes surrounded by barns and silos. They have to be jacks-of-all-trades to keep their equipment going and keep their cattle healthy. They put in massive amounts of hours of work in horrible weather conditions.

They're pretty much the same as my relatives in Georgia who are farmers.

I'm thinking your generalization shows a lack of knowledge of their actual circumstance.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 6:51 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Geezer, you actually believe the Pickens' are so stupid as to let the horses increase freely? Do you really think they're that stupid, given both's background in animal welfare? You think they are such ignorant softies that they haven't taken that into account? I give them more credit than that. That IS your entire premise, that unrestricted, the horses will overpopulate, yes?

First off, the horses are ALREADY there, so adding them to the equation is a fallacy; we just kill them off in favor of the cattle. Their numbers are also kept in check to a degree by the available resources. Not the same, I agree, but there are similiarities.

Coming at it from another direction, these animals, as well as buffalo, etc., had the use of the land long before we came along. Cattle are one of the worst foods, environmentally, financially and other ways, we all know that. But people will continue to eat them. The myth is that grass-fed cattle are better, but there is a lot of disagreement about that:

Quote:
Dr. Jude Capper, an assistant professor of dairy sciences at Washington State University, has studied the data.

Capper said: "There's a perception out there that grass-fed animals are frolicking in the sunshine, kicking their heels up full of joy and pleasure. What we actually found was from the land-use basis, from the energy, from water and, particularly, based on the carbon footprints, grass-fed is far worse than corn-fed."

How can that be?

"Simply because they have a far lower efficiency, far lower productivity. The animals take 23 months to grow. [Corn-fed cattle need only 15.] That's eight extra months of feed, of water, land use, obviously, and also an awful lot of waste. If we have a grass-fed animal, compared to a corn-fed animal, that's like adding almost one car to the road for every single animal. That's a huge increase in carbon footprints." More at http://www.newsmax.com/Stossel/cattle-grass-fed/2010/11/17/id/377301

There is no question that letting cattle graze is far cheaper than corn feeding them, and nicer for the cattle. But it's not good for the environment.

BLM has always been a joke "land management" is the LAST thing they do; they're on the side of humans who want to use the land and they prove it virtually every day. That's just the way it is, and nobody's going to change that any time soon.

As to the family-run ranches, we've got them here, in fact all our ranches are on land that is leased from the government, those 99-year leases where they can only sell out to another rancher or the lease is lost. They are all located out West of us, mostly on Point Reyes Peninsula (which in my opinion isn't good for much else!). But if loggers continued logging--and yes, I know there are more responsible ones now, but there are FAR less trees to be responsible about--it would be even more disasterous for us and the environment. So a lot of many-generation loggers lost their jobs. For both occupation, my deepest sympathy goes out, but WE are the ones overpopulating without restraint, not the animals. And many occupations go away as we continue to populate and our needs continue to grow. It's the way of the world.

This is no longer a young land with tons of trees, minerals, grasslands, etc., for us to utilize. Protecting what remains is what we should be trying to do; finding a balance between man's need and the continued health of the ecology. It's not good for individuals, but times change.

All in all, it seems to me that having the horses maintained on private land is far better than having them breed freely on the open range, then be slaughtered when their numbers get too big and they become a nuisance to the ranchers. The BLM does so many things wrong, on the sido of humans almost invariably, that this is just another example and doesn't hold water for me. I'd rather see predators introduced, but we know how ranchers feel about THAT! So this is another alternative.

As for consumption, from 1995-1999, while we were only the third biggest consumers of beef in the world, the other two, Argentina and Uruguay, went down in beef consumption over time, while we, Australia and New Zealand (4th and 5th) went up. ( http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1370_per_capita_consumption_of_me
at_and.html)

From 2001-2006, we were beat out by Argentina, tho' their per-capita consumption went down in that time period while ours went up. So did Australia and Brazil's (3rd & 4th). ( http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp/circular/2006/06-03LP/bpppcc.pdf)

I can't find beef alone, but if you add in veal, as of 2011, we dropped to 4th (after Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil). From 2001-2011, our consumption either held at the same level or went down. So did theirs (with a couple of blips). ( http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?commodity=beef-and-veal-meat&am
p;graph=per-capita-consumption) There's a lot of data on that one, and it's too complex for me to want to look for further data, plus that's beef AND veal, so I don't know how to get recent figures for just beef.

I take that as a good sign, insofar as consumption has begun to go down. So, Geezer, if beef consumption continues to go down, how many of those ranchers will find themselves out of business eventually anyway, correct? I know the argument of family ranches v. conglomerates is an important one, but I'm not getting into that.

I hate the way cattle are force-fed corn, and bred just to feed us, and the way they are kept until ready for slaughter. Makes me sick inside. I hate that Big Business has taken over virtually everything when it comes to food production. But I also care about the environment, so as long as people keep stuffing themselves with beef, there is no easy answer and many, many things continue to come in conflict with the enviornment, ecology, logic and common sense. This is only one of them. Forced to choose between the two, I'm more in favor of the long-term protection of the land, not to mention a smaller carbon footprint.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 9, 2011 7:14 AM

I say just clone the damn things and be done!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2008347/Test-tube-burge
r-coming-soon-Lab-grown-meat-needed-feed-world.html

As for the rest, when those ranchers made the decision to bet their livelyhood on what amounts to a government subsidy, they kinda lost any hope of my support in any realistic fashion, is that clear enough for you ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:16 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, you actually believe the Pickens' are so stupid as to let the horses increase freely? Do you really think they're that stupid, given both's background in animal welfare? You think they are such ignorant softies that they haven't taken that into account?

Hard to say. There's no proposals in the article about controlling the population, and Ms. Pickens surely won't cull the herds. There is a note that: "With no predators and ample food, a herd of mustangs can double in size in five years..." an Ms. Pickens will be sure they're well fed.

Quote:
First off, the horses are ALREADY there, so adding them to the equation is a fallacy

Actually Ms. Pickens had them moved in. "The first arrivals are 500 horses she bought from a Paiute Indian reservation."

Quote:
Coming at it from another direction, these animals, as well as buffalo, etc., had the use of the land long before we came along.

Horses are not native to North America. They were introduced by the Spanish in the 16th century.

Quote:
Cattle are one of the worst foods, environmentally, financially and other ways, we all know that.

Could be. As you note, there's still a demand for them and folks are able to make a living raising them. Should we tell them, "Sorry, you have to lose everything you and your family worked for for generations so rich folks can watch the pretty horses run."?

And range grown cattle aren't nearly as mis-treated as the ones on the feed lots you profess to hate. Seems like you'd want to keep the ranchers in business and shut down the feed lots, not vice versa.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:24 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
As for the rest, when those ranchers made the decision to bet their livelyhood on what amounts to a government subsidy, they kinda lost any hope of my support in any realistic fashion, is that clear enough for you ?

Subsidy?

They can't buy the land from the government. They can't just seize it. They need land to run cattle on, so thay pay the BLM $16 a head per year to graze. Not sure how that's a subsidy.

What would you have them do?

BTW, how do you get around in your community? Do you use the public streets? How do you justify taking that government subsidy?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:23 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

As to the horses being there, I didn't say they were native. If you want to be specific, man isn't truly "native", nor were any of the critters who migrated down from Canada or up from Mexico, etc., if you go back far enough. Sixteenth century is far enough back for me. My point was that mankind is overtaking the land more and more as our population explodes and our demands on the land increase, and everything in our path pays the price.

Okay, so she moved them from an Indian reservation to the land, makes little difference to me. Do you know what life is like on the average Indian reservation? If the horses had any chance of surviving there, I don't think she'd have moved them. And I give the Pickens' FAR more credit than you do; even someone fairly ignorant knows that if a population isn't kept in check, it would expand beyond it's ability to survive. I'm assuming she would have most of the stallions gelded, which solves THAT problem right there.

No, we don't have to tell them what you wrote, that's a gross exaggeration. Just like so many occupations which have gone away, they'd have to find another way to make a living, just like loggers. The world changes--unfortunately for farmers and ranchers, it's changing MOSTLY because big conglomerates are taking over, but I have no control over that any more than I do over our consumption of beef. It's not a fair world, however much we'd like it to be, and if beef consumption keeps going down, what do you tell the children's children of those there now? The same thing? Hopefully it WILL happen eventually...all resources run out if they're not safeguarded, and beef is one of the worst ways of using the land, water, etc., as that article points out.

On that subject, I guess I wasn't clear enough. I hate corn-fed cattle and how they're treated, AND I hate what range-fed cattle do to the environment. If I had to make a choice (and obviously in this case I do), I go with keeping the land for as long as possible. I long ago learned a very valuable lesson: conservationists and environmentalists can bust our BUTTS trying to save places and things; every time we do, we go up against pretty damned tough odds and a lot of moneyed interests. Each time we win, we've only won "for now", we'll have to fight the battle over and over. Each time THEY win, it's usually forever; you can't bring things back once a mountain has been fragged or anything else is done that nature can't overcome. Obviously in some cases we CAN (IF we can win after the fact), waterways can be cleaned up, the land can repair itself to an extent, fish will come back...but even then, only if the environment is repaired, and the battle begins again. It was a big comeuppance for me, and one of the reasons I'm no longer active in environmental volunteering. It just broke me.

There's more to it, of course; once I was working full time it became more difficult, as I got older there was less I could do (since I did hands-on rehab), there's all the politics of which group do you support, etc. I quit around the time Canadian Greenpeace and US Greenpeace had their big blow-up; we'd been raising money for the US group, and when I found out about all the infighting, I realized how much of that money had gone to waste. It's damned hard being an environmentalist; we're always fighting a huge tide and lots of money. Add to that the fact that no "win" is won forever, and I just gave up.

The only thing I CAN do is not eat beef, which I don't except in tiny quantities (and would give THAT up if I weren't a "meatatarian" and didn't hate vegetables SO much). That's the only "power" I have over any of this, and I did take heart, when checking, to find that beef consumption has been going down for a number of years now almost globally.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2011 4:48 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
As to the horses being there, I didn't say they were native.

You said they were here (one assumes North America) long before we(humans) were. That's incorrect. From an ecological point of view, they're an invasive species; pretty much like cane toads or rabbits in Australia, or wild hogs or starlings in the U.S.

Quote:
If you want to be specific, man isn't truly "native", nor were any of the critters who migrated down from Canada or up from Mexico, etc., if you go back far enough.

So lets kill off everything that lives on earth today and give it back to the trilobites. Is that your argument?

Look. I have no problem with Ms. Pickens keeping all the wild horses that she can on property that she owns. If she wants to buy more land and keep wild horses on that land, that's fine with me. Her husband is rich beyond the dreams or avarice,so she can do that. I just have a problem when her hobby claims masive amounts of public land and drives people who have for generations been providing food for the majority of folks in the U.S. off their land.

The fact that you apparently don't care if super-rich folks can put working people out of business on a whim is kind'a disturbing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:58 PM

And *I* have no problem with those ranchers grazing their cattle on land that THEY own.

Quid Pro Quo.

Admit it, this is all over having to share the nipple on a government tit.

Quote:
The fact that you apparently don't care if super-rich folks can put working people out of business on a whim is kind'a disturbing.

Oh but you'd call that capitalism, free market and competition if the ranchers did it to someone else, wouldn't you - even if they did so with a little help from the Gov...

Dude, your hypocrisy is showin pretty clear, here.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:33 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Gawd, Geezer, that response is worthy of Raptor. And little else!

Quote:
You said they were here (one assumes North America) long before we(humans) were.

No, I meant they were here before we EUROPEANS were. And the following snark is as unworthy of response as most of what Raptor puts up. So is

Quote:
The fact that you apparently don't care if super-rich folks can put working people out of business on a whim is kind'a disturbing.

What a shame; you USED to be able to debate intelligently, and even quasi-civilly. I guess those days are over, obviously.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:59 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
No, I meant they were here before we EUROPEANS were.

Wrong again. We EUROPEANS brought them here.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:03 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Admit it, this is all over having to share the nipple on a government tit.

Once again, they lease land from BLM to run their cattle, and are limited by the amount of grazing the land can provide. How you figure this to be a subsidy or sharing the 'government tit' escapes me, and you've failed to explain your logic despite several requests.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:25 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Gawd you're nitpicking...I should have said "we BRITISH", I just couldn't come up with the right term...we weren't yet Americans, we weren't British in my view, so I figured "European" was close enough, indicating we came from "over there". So you chose to take that as "we Spanish"...go right ahead, have fun. You and I both know what I was saying.

Grazing cattle on BLM land is a subsidy in that it would cost a LOT more to graze them on private land. Ergo, they are getting the use of the land at cut rate, ergo the Government is "giving" them something. See?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 3:00 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Gawd you're nitpicking...I should have said "we BRITISH", I just couldn't come up with the right term...we weren't yet Americans, we weren't British in my view, so I figured "European" was close enough, indicating we came from "over there". So you chose to take that as "we Spanish"...go right ahead, have fun. You and I both know what I was saying.

Sorry, Niki, but I can only take what you type at face value. There's no way I can know that when you say European you mean British.

Nevertheless, horses are not native to America. They were brought to the South and Southwest by the Spanish. Later Native Americans stole them or captured strays and through trade and raid spread them to the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana. They're an introduced species.

Quote:
Grazing cattle on BLM land is a subsidy in that it would cost a LOT more to graze them on private land. Ergo, they are getting the use of the land at cut rate, ergo the Government is "giving" them something. See?

I've seen typical BLM land, and it's no bargain.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 5:22 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I do not believe you that you misunderstood me. You're smarter than that.

And yes, I know fully well how horses came here, and that the Native Americans ate them at first before discovering their other, better uses.

If BLM land is no bargain, why are the ranchers (and you) so head up about the horses, especially if she is intending to BUY it to put the horses on? That's a dichotomy. Either it's worth something or it's not; either it's value is such that it's worth fighting over or it's not. I know what you're saying, and I won't be so disingenuous as to mischaracterize it, but the fact remains you've kind of contradicted yourself with that statement.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2011 1:58 AM

DREAMTROVE

i was reading about this earlier. I can't think that this is anything other than a other stealth landgrab which they will bait and switch again just like did the last two times, with the solar famr, and then the wind farm, and then just frack the land.

Interesting the BLM wanted pickens to come up with a "water preservation plan" sounds like even blm knows what the pickens are up to.

Sad about the horses, but i don't imaging anyone involved cares. It's just another empty emotional plea, #375 for these guys.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 13, 2011 2:56 AM