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

[Red Baron Farms]

While an adorable essay, it was based upon research that was older than some of the material I cited. If you go back far enough you can find research claiming leeches can treat heart disease by adjusting your humors. Scince progresses, and your rejection of newer data is a sad sight to behold.



Your arguments hinge upon ignoring more recent research.

Actually not. That reference list containing older studies is the other side! The side you are defending! LOL That's one reason I know you have not studied the issue and have no idea how scientific rebuttals work. You have to reference the opponents side in a rebuttal and then give your side! Apparently you didn't even read them either, or you would have instantly seen that! In fact it is the same references you posted! Did you even notice that? d'oh Why would I post a rebuttal to your post that didn't include your references and show why they were wrong? PS In case you actually didn't read the reason I'll copy it again. "These published data were omitted in the reviews by Briske et al. " Apparently they were also omitted in the later study too. After all they said and you bolded, "This review could find no peer-reviewed studies that show that this management approach is superior to conventional grazing systems in outcomes." So they apparently omitted the data just as Briske et al. had done back in 2008. Hey if you are willing to ignore the data and evidence, then of course you will come to whatever conclusion you want!

However the OVERWHELMING majority of actual cases where modern range science has been put into effect on ranches, it has been effective at restoring the ecology. Not just a cherry picked 1 or 2, but nearly ALL. Meanwhile simply reducing the cattle stocking rate, even to zero, is overwhelmingly INEFFECTIVE on dry rangeland.

 

[halleyscomet]

Actually not. That reference list containing older studies is the other side! The side you are defending! LOL That's one reason I know you have not studied the issue and have no idea how scientific rebuttals work. You have to reference the opponents side in a rebuttal and then give your side! Apparently you didn't even read them either, or you would have instantly seen that! In fact it is the same references you posted! Did you even notice that? d'oh Why would I post a rebuttal to your post that didn't include your references and show why they were wrong? PS In case you actually didn't read the reason I'll copy it again. "These published data were omitted in the reviews by Briske et al. " Apparently they were also omitted in the later study too. After all they said and you bolded, "This review could find no peer-reviewed studies that show that this management approach is superior to conventional grazing systems in outcomes." So they apparently omitted the data just as Briske et al. had done back in 2008. Hey if you are willing to ignore the data and evidence, then of course you will come to whatever conclusion you want!

However the OVERWHELMING majority of actual cases where modern range science has been put into effect on ranches, it has been effective at restoring the ecology. Not just a cherry picked 1 or 2, but nearly ALL. Meanwhile simply reducing the cattle stocking rate, even to zero, is overwhelmingly INEFFECTIVE on dry rangeland.

Your retort to the studies that debunk HLM is to cry "selection bias!" and reassert your apparent belief in the superiority of anecdotes over larger, better done studies.

How very predictable and unpersuasive.

Do you have ANYTHING new to offer? I'm starting to feel like I'm being served reheated cooked cabbage.

 

[12AX7]

This is still a ludicrous claim.

To explain, lets go back to an apartment analogy. A family has rented an apartment for 2 years, and it is time to renew. They currently have a rider to allow them to keeps pets and have 2 dogs. However, the landlord has changed his/her mind about allowing pets (for no apparent reason), so no longer offers that option.

In the real world, this means that the tenants can either sign the new lease and find new homes for their dogs, or they can find a new home for themselves and their dogs.

However, what Bundy would have done in this situation is to refuse to sign the new lease, but also refuse to move out and not pay any rent. It does not matter that the change by the landlord was not reasonable. The reaction of the tenant is so beyond any semblance of reason that it is impossible to assign any fault to the landlord.

But...but...but...

The landlord needs to provide the tenants with a comprehensive recycling plan first.

 

[12AX7]

RBF: What does anything you're saying have to do with the fact that Bundy didn't pay his fees (for 20 years) for a right to be on the land?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Your retort to the studies that debunk HLM is to cry "selection bias!" and reassert your apparent belief in the superiority of anecdotes over larger, better done studies.

How very predictable and unpersuasive.

Do you have ANYTHING new to offer? I'm starting to feel like I'm being served reheated cooked cabbage.

Again apparently you haven't been paying attention. The larger better done studies all support the modern science. I'll refresh your memory. "...rangelands cited by Briske et al. [1,2,3] has been short-term and has examined the issue from a reductionist viewpoint that ignores the critical influences of scale..." In fact the very thing that fired me up about this whole issue is when I started checking that data myself. One study Briske references is actually a single grass plant per pot and one pot is clipped with scissors to simulate grazing, another is burned, and the control is left to oxidize! Meanwhile, 100's of millions of acres of actual rangeland has been improved and functioning ecosystems restored by modern range scientific methods! Yet the potted plants study counts to help prove the 100's of millions of acres doesn't work? It is ridiculous. Absurd beyond belief. I saw that ~ 2 years ago, long before I knew Bundy even existed. So you can pat yourself on the back for being so clever all you want, but you are getting no where with it. The BLM's motivation for starting this whole conflict from the beginning was to improve the ecosystem of that range. They made a poor decision not to include an option that would give Bundy the opportunity to try and improve that range with the BLM's own grazing system they developed for that very purpose! This whole conflict started with BLM incompetence!

 

[Biscuit]

It was omitted for being unreliable and not following Allan Savory's own guidelines.

 

[12AX7]

This whole conflict started with BLM incompetence!

No.

It started with the fact that Bundy didn't pay his fees (for 20 years) for a right to be on the land.

Period. Over. Done. End of discussion.

 

[plague311]

*snip garbage* The BLM's motivation for starting this whole conflict from the beginning was to improve the ecosystem of that range. They made a poor decision not to include an option that would give Bundy the opportunity to try and improve that range with their own grazing system they developed for that very purpose! This whole conflict started with BLM incompetence!

No, it wasn't, as the BLM didn't stop grazing, Clark County was the one that ended it. Also, it wasn't to improve the ecosystem, it was to protect an almost endangered species from becoming extinct due to a bunch of large animals stomping them, their homes, and eating all of the food. Maybe your comprehension could use some work?

 

[NoahFence]

RBF: What does anything you're saying have to do with the fact that Bundy didn't pay his fees (for 20 years) for a right to be on the land?

Nothing at all. RBF wins the off-topic award hands down.

 

[desertgal]

There is a point when you just need to admit you are wrong. We were all wrong. Time to get over it and work with the new scientific advancements.

So you've moved on from your "everyone knows I'm right, they just won't admit it" position. Good for you.

Now, in the event Cliven Bundy and his band of merry miscreants actually do choose to open fire and injure/kill a BLM employee, or law enforcement officer, or an innocent bystander, will your position still be "BLM=bad/Cliven Bundy=beleaguered victim of the big bad BLM"? I'm just curious. You could just say so now and save yourself (and us) more wall o'texts.

 

[Biscuit]

Should the land management, specifically HG, be moved to a new thread in science or general skepticism? I think every knows my vote.

How do we go about doing that?

 

[NoahFence]

Should the land management, specifically HG, be moved to a new thread in science or general skepticism? I think every knows my vote.

How do we go about doing that?

Conspiracy Theories.

 

[plague311]

So you've moved on from your "everyone knows I'm right, they just won't admit it" position. Good for you.

Now, in the event Cliven Bundy and his band of merry miscreants actually do choose to open fire and injure/kill a BLM employee, or law enforcement officer, or an innocent bystander, will your position still be "BLM=bad/Cliven Bundy=beleaguered victim of the big bad BLM"? I'm just curious. You could just say so now and save yourself (and us) more wall o'texts.

I think RBF is saying that he doesn't condone the way Bundy is acting now, per se. However, if the BLM would have just been his bitch to start this all off then there wouldn't be any problem because everyone would be rich and happy.

 

[iknownothing]

I really don't care if BLM should be using holistic grazing or not. It's completely irrelevant. Even if it's the greatest thing ever, Bundy's actions are wrong, not the fault of the BLM, and inexcusable & irresponsible for right-wing media to have defended.

Even if the BLM was wrong in what it required of him, so what? Government and regulatory entities will sometimes make bad choices. The issue is how to deal with it if that happens to you. There are legal and responsible avenues to pursue. And if you pursue those (Bundy didn't) and still can't change things, then you suck it up and deal with it. You don't resort to violence except as a last resort for a major human rights issue or something like that, which this isn't.

Or, shorter version: the person assembling a private army (even an army of dimwits), revealing messages from God, and spouting nonsensical political ideas is always in the wrong. Trying to lay the blame for his nonsense on anyone but him is pointless, no matter how much you want to promote holistic grazing.

 

[desertgal]

I think RBF is saying that he doesn't condone the way Bundy is acting now, per se. However, if the BLM would have just been his bitch to start this all off then there wouldn't be any problem because everyone would be rich and happy.

Yes. RBF has repeatedly paid lip service to Bundy being wrong, but always, immediately follows that with "BLM made him do it! They didn't offer him the option of holistic land managememt, and that's all he needed to abide by the contract!"

(Never mind that Bundy has said the opposite. Bundy doesn't know what he's talking about.)

"BLM backed Bundy into a corner! That's why he stopped paying the feesies! He HAD to!"

BLM didn't back Bundy into a corner. Neither did Clark County. The guy built a corner and stepped into it with a bunch of armed, self patriotic asshats. Now, law enforcement has to figure out how to resolve the situation with no one getting hurt. If someone does, RBF will again tell us how it's all due to HLM.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I really don't care if BLM should be using holistic grazing or not. It's completely irrelevant. Even if it's the greatest thing ever, Bundy's actions are wrong, not the fault of the BLM, and inexcusable & irresponsible for right-wing media to have defended.

Even if the BLM was wrong in what it required of him, so what? Government and regulatory entities will sometimes make bad choices. The issue is how to deal with it if that happens to you. There are legal and responsible avenues to pursue. And if you pursue those (Bundy didn't) and still can't change things, then you suck it up and deal with it. You don't resort to violence except as a last resort for a major human rights issue or something like that, which this isn't.

Or, shorter version: the person assembling a private army (even an army of dimwits), revealing messages from God, and spouting nonsensical political ideas is always in the wrong. Trying to lay the blame for his nonsense on anyone but him is pointless, no matter how much you want to promote holistic grazing.

Agreed with part of your statement. Bundy has not dealt with it properly. Not even close. He is wrong to fight back in this way. That reasoning doesn't get BLM off the hook though. They are representatives of the larger public and beholden to the rest of us taxpayers who do respect the government. When they do make mistakes in judgement, it is up to us to try and get that fixed. The socio-political benefit to fixing that BLM mistake is that it pulls the rug out from Bundy's militia recruitment activities. Hard to recruit anti-government forces when the government is acting wisely and reasonably. But when the government bullheadedly refuses to admit and correct their mistakes, it makes it very easy to incite anti-government activities.

 

[Tricky]

Agreed with part of your statement. Bundy has not dealt with it properly. Not even close. He is wrong to fight back in this way. That reasoning doesn't get BLM off the hook though. They are representatives of the larger public and beholden to the rest of us taxpayers who do respect the government. When they do make mistakes in judgement, it is up to us to try and get that fixed. The socio-political benefit to fixing that BLM mistake is that it pulls the rug out from Bundy's militia recruitment activities. Hard to recruit anti-government forces when the government is acting wisely and reasonably. But when the government bullheadedly refuses to admit and correct their mistakes, it makes it very easy to incite anti-government activities.

That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. You simply can't get everyone to agree what is "wise and reasonable". Someone is going to be PO'd. Indeed, the events of the last six years show that some folks are just dedicated to being angry, regardless of what is actually done. Some of the same people who rant about illegal aliens are perfectly fine with lawless citizens.

 

[Biscuit]

Agreed with part of your statement. Bundy has not dealt with it properly. Not even close. He is wrong to fight back in this way. That reasoning doesn't get BLM off the hook though. They are representatives of the larger public and beholden to the rest of us taxpayers who do respect the government. When they do make mistakes in judgement, it is up to us to try and get that fixed. The socio-political benefit to fixing that BLM mistake is that it pulls the rug out from Bundy's militia recruitment activities. Hard to recruit anti-government forces when the government is acting wisely and reasonably. But when the government bullheadedly refuses to admit and correct their mistakes, it makes it very easy to incite anti-government activities.

All well and good but the government didn't make any mistakes, none you have shown anyway. The blame for this situation is 100% on Cliven Bundy.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Should the land management, specifically HG, be moved to a new thread in science or general skepticism? I think every knows my vote.

How do we go about doing that?

I don't think it's possible at this point. The derail has just gone on way too long.

 

[desertgal]

Agreed with part of your statement. Bundy has not dealt with it properly. Not even close. He is wrong to fight back in this way. That reasoning doesn't get BLM off the hook though. They are representatives of the larger public and beholden to the rest of us taxpayers who do respect the government. When they do make mistakes in judgement, it is up to us to try and get that fixed. The socio-political benefit to fixing that BLM mistake is that it pulls the rug out from Bundy's militia recruitment activities. Hard to recruit anti-government forces when the government is acting wisely and reasonably. But when the government bullheadedly refuses to admit and correct their mistakes, it makes it very easy to incite anti-government activities.

See? "BLM made Bundy do it! He's wrong...but not really."