• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher in clash with federal

True. Peer reviewed synthesis paper. One where the peer review went so badly, co-authors dropped off the team completely then started writing rebuttals themselves! and Briske himself was forced to write a new paper just 3 years later taking steps backwards. Why? Because all that pesky "anecdotal" evidence keeps getting in the way of his nice clean synthesis. I am looking forward to his next paper, maybe he'll be down to just one co-author by then! :D

Although testimonials and anecdotal reports of the benefits of rotational grazing are abundant, systematic assessments and documentation are lacking; the number of cases where it has been either successful or unsuccessful is unknown. We advocate that this disconnect between management and scientific knowledge must be addressed to provide appropriate, consistent, and defensible grazing management recommenda- tions and policies and to generate more useful knowledge of complex adaptive systems

Yea really walking it backwards. :rolleyes:

There is not any scientific evidence for holistic grazing. Fact.

The father of holistic grazing claims for some reason that it defies science. Fact.

There is no reason to believe that cliven bundy would have taken to holistic grazing or that offering it would have lead to a different out come. Fact.

Eta: on another note isn't it interesting how actual scientists are willing look at new information and reevaluate their positions based on evidence? Unlike Allan savory who simply insist he is always right, despite the evidence.
 
Last edited:
:)

Feel free to post more.

Hotlinked from Imgur, which exists to hotlink images.

kGgpxfV.gif

ux8WNrm.gif

T7C6JAa.gif

D46D848.gif

p1liiBv.gif

v4WTlow.gif

l1zUVr7.gif

S58UM37.gif

961l8Ol.gif

xKsEBhI.gif


This is the real issue here. All this "Holistic Grazing" blather is irrelevant. The "argument" that holistic grazing theology had ANYTHING to do with this situation is a steam pile of bovine excrement.

Speaking of which, Bundy's 'Ancestral Rights' Story A Load Of Crap
 
I had a customer in my shop this morning casually ask why there was nothing in the paper about U.S. soldiers drawing down on peaceful citizens in Nevada. I responded, politely, that the BLM LEO's are not U.S. soldiers and that they had received veiled threats in the lead up to this event.

He told me that they were actually U.S. military disguised as LEO's.
 
Last edited:
I had a customer in my shop this morning casually ask why there was nothing in the paper about U.S. soldiers drawing down on peaceful citizens in Nevada. I responded, politely, that the BLM LEO's are not U.S. soldiers and that they had received veiled threats in the lead up to this event.

He told me that they were actually U.S. military disguised as LOE's.

Of course they are military, how could something that doesn't exist have law enforcement officers?
 
I had a customer in my shop this morning casually ask why there was nothing in the paper about U.S. soldiers drawing down on peaceful citizens in Nevada. I responded, politely, that the BLM LEO's are not U.S. soldiers and that they had received veiled threats in the lead up to this event.

He told me that they were actually U.S. military disguised as LOE's.

In reading news accounts of the day that cattle were released, there is occasional mention of a "flyover" by Apache helicopters. I think the protesters (some of them, at least) thought that the flyover was connected to the protest, that there was a chance that the helicopters could fire on the protesters.

Anyone who spends time in Southern Nevada is aware that The Air force base in Vegas supports a variety of aircraft, including many Apaches; the things are a common sight in the skies of southern Nevada. More likely that the choppers had no connection to the protest at all, or that the pilots perhaps had some discretion in choosing the day's flight path and chose a route over Bunkerville out of curiosity. Anyway, if one believe that the gobermunt is prepared to use attack choppers against our own people, then it would not be a stretch to assume that some military people were also on the ground in disguise - I mean, Vladimir Putin does it in Ukraine, and a good many far-right people have serious man-crushes on Putin.

One thing that I am slowly getting to understand, is that the militia types and their supporters continue to believe that the presence of the militias and the presence of weapons among the protesters actually de-escalated the situation. This compares to the average sane person, who probably thinks the militia and weapon play escalated the tension dramatically. There is a very different mindset among the faux-Patriots; it can be disturbing the realize just how disconnected they are from society and reality.
 
I really hope those guys resist when the FBI comes for them next week.

What the hell, no. I hope they're all taken easily, sobbing quietly, and are quickly forgotten. The last thing I hope for is violence where innocent people could be hurt and people can rally behind.
 
What the hell, no. I hope they're all taken easily, sobbing quietly, and are quickly forgotten. The last thing I hope for is violence where innocent people could be hurt and people can rally behind.

My hope is that when the arrests are made, that the LEOs just walk up, calmly place Mr. Bundy under arrest, and do the same to any of the patriots that decide to interfere with a policeman in the performance of their duties.
 
Yea really walking it backwards. :rolleyes:

There is not any scientific evidence for holistic grazing. Fact.

The father of holistic grazing claims for some reason that it defies science. Fact.

There is no reason to believe that cliven bundy would have taken to holistic grazing or that offering it would have lead to a different out come. Fact.

Eta: on another note isn't it interesting how actual scientists are willing look at new information and reevaluate their positions based on evidence? Unlike Allan savory who simply insist he is always right, despite the evidence.
That whole post is a huge pile of woo. First off you simply lied in your first couple of so called "facts". I have already posted proof of that, so you know better. Then you follow with a strawman. The point is that Bundy was never given any options beneficial to him. The BLM tried to force him into making a choice between bad or worse. No one knows if he was given a choice to actually use grazing to restore the range if he would have accepted that option, because that option was never given him.

The point is completely relevant to the situation now. Back ANYONE into a corner with only bad options, and a % are likely to react belligerently. It's just human nature.
 
Last edited:
That whole post is a huge pile of woo. First off you simply lied in your first couple of so called "facts". I have already posted proof of that, so you know better. Then you follow with a strawman. The point is that Bundy was never given any options beneficial to him. The BLM tried to force him into making a choice between bad or worse. No one knows if he was given a choice to actually use grazing to restore the range if he would have accepted that option, because that option was never given him.

The point is completely relevant to the situation now. Back ANYONE into a corner with only bad options, and a % are likely to react belligerently. It's just human nature.

Bundy wasn't backed into a corner, he walked into it all by himself.
 
I really hope those guys resist when the FBI comes for them next week.
I hope they get charged with and convicted of a felony - any felony. Then it will be illegal for them to own guns for the rest of their lives. That'll be worse than having their wee-wee cut off. :)
 
Back that statement with evidence please. Where is the evidence of the beneficial option being given to Bundy which he stubbornly refused?

Please look up "shifting the burden of proof".
Your claim, you're required to support the statement that the decision was arbitrary. Preferably in a thread where it will be on topic.
 
Please look up "shifting the burden of proof".
Your claim, you're required to support the statement that the decision was arbitrary. Preferably in a thread where it will be on topic.

And, Red Baron Farms, while you´re at it, check out the difference between "make a claim" and "provide evidence". There seems to be some confusion on your part about this...
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom