State of Idaho Neglecting Kids for the Benefit of Cows

[JoseCuervo]

Paws,

Why won't you answer straight forward questions? Your comments on the class action suits and less than ethica behaviours are inflammatory, but when quizzed, you clam up.

If you really want to "fit in", you have to realize that when you post something, if it is not clear or is weak, people will ask you about it. Perhaps politely at first.

Again, If you are just learning, can you explain these two quotes of yours?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would seem that the approach needed to handle Mr. Marvel would be a class action suit of the losing bidders naming Mr. Marvel and the land owner as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not an interested bidder EG. Others apparently are and my perception is they are being frustrated by what appear to be less than ethical practices on Mr. Marvels part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still don't understand why you would suggest that Mavel needs to be sued or why you suggest that Marvel has "less than ethical practices"?

Don't those two statments appear to make it seem like you have a position on the debate, and are not merely learning?

Sterling is close enough.... Why do you ask?

 

[pawclaws]

So sue me bubba!

 

[JoseCuervo]

And so we get back to where we started.... not being able to answer questions about comments thrown around....

I wonder if those affect his ability to "fit in"???

 

[pawclaws]

Hey EG; I got somethin' you can....; errr, Bite Me!

 

[ELKCHSR]

Speaking of fitting in, why is it that one must hide behind some one elses apron strings instead of just standing up and being their own man and proudly stating who they are...
Or maybe they are not so proud of the fact of who and what they are... HHHmmmmmmm!!!

 

[Ten Bears]

IT/EG, you still haven't addressed how the issue of prescribed grazing would be addressed by WWP. Is it you have no clue, or they have no clue about grazing and range management? In many cases, neglecting to graze at key times is detrimental as well. It is my view that the "let it grow" plan is just as irresponsibleto range heatlh as over grazing.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,

Why would grazing ever be better than not grazing? I would prefer seeing deer and elk grazing, or antelope, or sage grouse, or Salmon in the creeks.

Cows are supposed to graze on private lands.

 

[Nemont]

Cows are supposed to graze on private lands.

Or well managed public lands a $1.43 per AUM.


Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

If posssesion is 9/10 of the law, I would assume the "owner" of the Public Lands should then be able to "own" the cattle found therein.

 

[Nemont]

EG,

If posssesion is 9/10 of the law, I would assume the "owner" of the Public Lands should then be able to "own" the cattle found therein.

Using that reasoning then the owner of the wildlife, the State, should have a say in private lands management also. Shouldn't they?

Nemont

 

[pawclaws]

(Click picture please)

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Nemont:
EG,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If posssesion is 9/10 of the law, I would assume the "owner" of the Public Lands should then be able to "own" the cattle found therein.

Using that reasoning then the owner of the wildlife, the State, should have a say in private lands management also. Shouldn't they?

Nemont </font>[/QUOTE]No, 'cuz wildlife is owned by the state, for some reason...

 

[Washington Hunter]

Using that reasoning then the owner of the wildlife, the State, should have a say in private lands management also. Shouldn't they?

States do have a say in private land management, but not nearly enough, in my opinion.

 

[Nemont]

EG,

No, 'cuz wildlife is owned by the state, for some reason

isn't that what I said?

If your reasoning is that

posssesion is 9/10 of the law, I would assume the "owner" of the Public Lands should then be able to "own" the cattle found therein.

Wouldn't be safe to assume then that the owner of the wildlife found on private land should be able to "own" the land found therein?

Help me out I am having trouble making the mental leap(Which you are well aware of my limited leaping ability) to why you think grazing privately owned cattle on a grazing allotment would allow the public to take possession of said cattle.

Nemont

[ 05-28-2004, 14:06: Message edited by: Nemont ]

 

[pawclaws]

It is "faulty logic" caused by too many close up encounteres with Ishikawa dendograms, tree diagrams, fish bone diagrams, and the like resulting in confused cause and effect relationships.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Wouldn't be safe to assume then that the owner of the wildlife found of private land should be able to "own" the land found therein?

Nemont,
I think the crux of your problem is you keep using the word "land" as the third to the last word in the question. If you were to use the word "animals", then you would have a different response.

 

[Nemont]

EG,
I have used land on purpose because I am trying to figure out your arguement regarding the public taking possession of cattle grazing on public. Expand on that premise please.

I one of those not too smart people that needs it explained to me.

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,
You are losing me here.... Maybe we can get Paws to bring one of his smiley faces to the discussion, and then we will all be enlightened....

Are you now "advocating" that the owner of wildlife (that would be the State) can now take ownership of private land, based upon the State's animals wandering across the land?

 

[Nemont]

EG,

ABSOLUTELY not.

posssesion is 9/10 of the law, I would assume the "owner" of the Public Lands should then be able to "own" the cattle found therein.

I wanted you to explain to me what you are saying in this quote. Appears to me that you are saying cattle grazed on public lands should be allowed to be taken as a public assets simply by virtue of them grazing there. Maybe I misunderestimated what you where saying.

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

No,
I agree with you. If we find "wild cattle" grazing on public lands, we should be able to sieze them, as posession is 9/10 of the law.

Maybe we should even have "siezing seasons", where if you have a license and an ear tag, you can go get these cattle on public lands....