|
Post by redleg on Apr 12, 2014 10:27:26 GMT -5
Why do we have to pay for grazing rights on land that is otherwise idle? How do the cattle "damage" or intefere with others' use of the land? Could it be that someone has a private agenda for the use of that "public" land? How does it happen that the great preponderance of land in the State of Nevada is "owned" by the U.S. Government? Of course, except for the casinos and whorehouses. Well, I guess I mis-speak - they're licensed by the State. Is there any private property in Nevada? Aside from Wayne Newton's estate? well, I think the feds should auction off all that land. Same for the forest land it owns. Not sure anyone wanted most of Nevada-- not exactly homestead-quality farmland, like Oklahoma. We pay for grazing rights because we're renting pasture. Given that we know how many acres are needed to support each cow without grazing the land down to bare dirt, it's a way to keep cattlemen from running too many "for free" without regard for next year's grass. If you had 50 acres of pasture to rent you would (1) rent to the person offering the best price, and (2) make sure the renter didn't put 10,000 cows on it to chew the grass down to the roots, and then move on. (Or worse, 10,000 sheep.) There's always a problem with "common land." People who use it don't own it, and if they don't over-harvest, over-fish, etc, someone else will. That's the "tragedy of the commons." Being a good husbandman puts you at a competitive disadvantage to the most wasteful. (See: the Great Banks and codfish-- and haddock, halibut... pretty much everything except whitefish and hake.) Make something free-- even use of federal grassland-- and you'll find it is quickly overused and then GONE. [I'm betting the feds aren't charging enough, but then, Americans love cheap beef, so "we get what we want." I'm not looking for that land to be sold anytime soon... unless it's to someone "connected", like ADM. *sigh*) His family has grazed their cattle on that land since the 1880s. Ranchers know how to move cattle without destroying the land, because they will need it next year, or the year after. It's the enviroMarxists, relying on some academic that's never seen a cow, that cause the problems.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 12, 2014 10:28:53 GMT -5
Only the feds can manage to spend 3million rounding up cattle. I also wonder why it has taken 20 years to go after him for non payment of fees.It would be nice if the officials who chose to stampede the cattle through tortoise country got fined or thrown in jail for every tortoise that was crushed in the rush. Some bureaucrat finally decided to do his job.
There are 2 in the wrong here.
The government for not collecting them all along (someone was derelict in his job) The rancher knew he owed the money (he is criminal)
Nope. He was on TV last night, saying he's willing to pay, but not to the Feds, since it's not Federal land. It's state land.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 12, 2014 10:30:25 GMT -5
Some bureaucrat finally decided to do his job.
There are 2 in the wrong here.
The government for not collecting them all along (someone was derelict in his job) The rancher knew he owed the money (he is criminal)
The rancher is a criminal in a couple of ways. 1. The non payment of grazing fees. 2. When they changed the number of cattle he could run because of the tortoises he exceeded that number. I feel for him because he was hit by the federal bus over tortoises, but he has had 20 years to make his exit, seems he should have seen this coming and planned accordingly. Why? What is the Feds' authority?
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Apr 12, 2014 10:41:46 GMT -5
Some bureaucrat finally decided to do his job.
There are 2 in the wrong here.
The government for not collecting them all along (someone was derelict in his job) The rancher knew he owed the money (he is criminal)
Nope. He was on TV last night, saying he's willing to pay, but not to the Feds, since it's not Federal land. It's state land. Then he should have been making those payments to the state for the last 20 years, or putting it in escrow if nothing else. This guy sounds remarkably like you. He pushes an argument for states rights, but kind of ignores reality on the ground. Well there is a place for martyrs in making political changes.
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Apr 12, 2014 11:44:09 GMT -5
I have to agree with Charlie, this could be a test of the Govt take over. Charlie Daniels: First test of military against citizens? HEAVILY-ARMED FEDS SURROUND NEVADA RANCH... FAA Orders No Fly Zone... Cell Towers Shut Down? County Commissioner Says Bundy Supporters 'Better Have Funeral Plans'... Lawmaker: Cattle Roundup 'Reminded Me Of Tiananmen Square'... Militia Members Arrive: We're not 'afraid to shoot'... Supporters gather outside LVPD headquarters... Rangers Brought in From Out of State... Charlie Daniels: First test of military against citizens? Feds Refuse to Say If They've Euthanized Cattle... BREAK: Sen. Reid/Chinese gov't takeover of ranch for solar farm? drudgereport.com/
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 12, 2014 12:34:35 GMT -5
Nope. He was on TV last night, saying he's willing to pay, but not to the Feds, since it's not Federal land. It's state land. Then he should have been making those payments to the state for the last 20 years, or putting it in escrow if nothing else. This guy sounds remarkably like you. He pushes an argument for states rights, but kind of ignores reality on the ground. Well there is a place for martyrs in making political changes. I don't know that he wasn't. This is the Feds coming after him. And the "argument" is right there in the Constitution. No Executive Order can over ride that. Neither can the EPA. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 12, 2014 13:08:10 GMT -5
Why do we have to pay for grazing rights on land that is otherwise idle? How do the cattle "damage" or intefere with others' use of the land? When they kill all the grass, you get erosion. The grass roots the soil in place. Once you get erosion you get dustbowls. What this man is doing is little different than if I walk into the food store, grab a carton of milk and walk out without paying for it: he is stealing from the taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 12, 2014 13:23:13 GMT -5
Arizona is also mostly federal. The states, and private individuals should own the land. Just think of all the state revenue that is lost because the feds are not paying property taxes. True. We initially followed the thinking of folk such as Thomas Paine and used wealth (private property) as a basis for funding local governments. Amongst the original states there was no federal assets to thwart the citizens. But... empire building and bureaucracy prevailed in the western lands. Witness Alaska! (our good friend Moses enjoys life up there secure in the tributes extracted from the honest producers who must beg for the "privilege" to toil on the Kings Land. This particular parcel of land in the Gold Butte area is part of the Lake Meade National Recreation Area... and as such is subject to federal control... much of the drainage area for Lake Meade in in that area simply because it needs to be managed properly... this cattle owner signed a lease and was allowed to graze his cattle there on federal land for a fee... (which went to the LMNRA)... he agreed to pay it, then reneged... something should have been done long ago... you or I couldn't refuse to honor the terms of a lease we had signed for 20 years... neither should he...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 12, 2014 13:26:22 GMT -5
Since Mom didn't leave a link to any article with regard to these comments, here's one... Mr Bundy hasn't paid his federal grazing taxes since 1993... this protest is mostly a right-wing Tea Party action... “Mr. Bundy is breaking the law, and he has been breaking the law for 20 years,” she said. “He owes the taxpayers of the United States over $1 million.”www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/bundy-vs-blm-interest-cattle-dispute-widensSorry, there is no "law". Since the Feds are prohibited from "owning" any land, except for "forts, magazines, docks, and for government buildings", unless they are planning on making NV a shipyard, they have no rights to that land. And, according to the news last night, that is state land anyway, not "Federal". It is federal property... belonging to all of us... but managed by the federal government on our behalf... and I'm glad about that... I love to visit such land... and have... many times...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 12, 2014 13:34:52 GMT -5
well, I think the feds should auction off all that land. Same for the forest land it owns. Not sure anyone wanted most of Nevada-- not exactly homestead-quality farmland, like Oklahoma. We pay for grazing rights because we're renting pasture. Given that we know how many acres are needed to support each cow without grazing the land down to bare dirt, it's a way to keep cattlemen from running too many "for free" without regard for next year's grass. If you had 50 acres of pasture to rent you would (1) rent to the person offering the best price, and (2) make sure the renter didn't put 10,000 cows on it to chew the grass down to the roots, and then move on. (Or worse, 10,000 sheep.) There's always a problem with "common land." People who use it don't own it, and if they don't over-harvest, over-fish, etc, someone else will. That's the "tragedy of the commons." Being a good husbandman puts you at a competitive disadvantage to the most wasteful. (See: the Great Banks and codfish-- and haddock, halibut... pretty much everything except whitefish and hake.) Make something free-- even use of federal grassland-- and you'll find it is quickly overused and then GONE. [I'm betting the feds aren't charging enough, but then, Americans love cheap beef, so "we get what we want." I'm not looking for that land to be sold anytime soon... unless it's to someone "connected", like ADM. *sigh*) His family has grazed their cattle on that land since the 1880s. Ranchers know how to move cattle without destroying the land, because they will need it next year, or the year after. It's the enviroMarxists, relying on some academic that's never seen a cow, that cause the problems. I believe someone posted a chart that seemed to indicate most of the cattle there were "wild born"... no "captive born" cattle were there until recent years... regardless, he seems to have signed a lease in order to use it... and should honor the terms of the lease...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 12, 2014 13:41:24 GMT -5
Some bureaucrat finally decided to do his job.
There are 2 in the wrong here.
The government for not collecting them all along (someone was derelict in his job) The rancher knew he owed the money (he is criminal)
Nope. He was on TV last night, saying he's willing to pay, but not to the Feds, since it's not Federal land. It's state land. Sounds like the guy in Miles City, MT who borrowed several hundred thousand dollars and bought farm equipment with it... then refused to pay the money back because he said it was Federal Reserve money... what an idiot... this is federally managed land... part of the Lake Meade National Recreation Area... the state of Nevada doesn't maintain or manage it... You don't pay the state a fee when you visit a National Park... National Recreation Area, or National Monument... they are maintained by the federal government... for the enjoyment of ALL of us... not just those within those states...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 12, 2014 13:45:31 GMT -5
The rancher is a criminal in a couple of ways. 1. The non payment of grazing fees. 2. When they changed the number of cattle he could run because of the tortoises he exceeded that number. I feel for him because he was hit by the federal bus over tortoises, but he has had 20 years to make his exit, seems he should have seen this coming and planned accordingly. Why? What is the Feds' authority? 16 U.S. Code § 1a–1 - National Park System
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 12, 2014 13:50:40 GMT -5
Nope. He was on TV last night, saying he's willing to pay, but not to the Feds, since it's not Federal land. It's state land. Then he should have been making those payments to the state for the last 20 years, or putting it in escrow if nothing else. This guy sounds remarkably like you. He pushes an argument for states rights, but kind of ignores reality on the ground. Well there is a place for martyrs in making political changes. And the 5,000 idiots from "militias" from several states coming to Nevada in his defense... most of them armed... Sad that so many think they want such chaos... people making their own laws... like those apocalyptic movies we see where the people left ride around in armored vehicles... looting... and trying to find food for themselves...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 12, 2014 13:53:21 GMT -5
I have to agree with Charlie, this could be a test of the Govt take over. Charlie Daniels: First test of military against citizens? HEAVILY-ARMED FEDS SURROUND NEVADA RANCH... FAA Orders No Fly Zone... Cell Towers Shut Down? County Commissioner Says Bundy Supporters 'Better Have Funeral Plans'... Lawmaker: Cattle Roundup 'Reminded Me Of Tiananmen Square'... Militia Members Arrive: We're not 'afraid to shoot'... Supporters gather outside LVPD headquarters... Rangers Brought in From Out of State... Charlie Daniels: First test of military against citizens? Feds Refuse to Say If They've Euthanized Cattle... BREAK: Sen. Reid/Chinese gov't takeover of ranch for solar farm? drudgereport.com/I can only speak for me... but I'm gonna be on the government's side in situations like this... like like Brusett and Miles City... Charlie Daniels is an idiot and a fool...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 12, 2014 13:58:46 GMT -5
Why do we have to pay for grazing rights on land that is otherwise idle? How do the cattle "damage" or intefere with others' use of the land? When they kill all the grass, you get erosion. The grass roots the soil in place. Once you get erosion you get dustbowls. What this man is doing is little different than if I walk into the food store, grab a carton of milk and walk out without paying for it: he is stealing from the taxpayers. And wild born cattle seen to control their own numbers and environments for their own good... captive cattle have been added here overpopulating and damaging the land...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2014 16:48:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Desert Cowboy on Apr 12, 2014 17:05:52 GMT -5
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy singlehandedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.
|
|
|
Post by Cuchulain on Apr 12, 2014 17:19:25 GMT -5
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy singlehandedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero. Amen!
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 12, 2014 17:25:47 GMT -5
Sad that one guy refuses to pay his grazing fees on federal land when 1,600 other cattle farmers do... and get's away with it for 20 years... and has support...
|
|
|
Post by r686st on Apr 12, 2014 18:53:07 GMT -5
Sad that one guy refuses to pay his grazing fees on federal land when 1,600 other cattle farmers do... and get's away with it for 20 years... and has support... I don't think the show of force by the government goon squads is necessary either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2014 18:56:41 GMT -5
Sad that one guy refuses to pay his grazing fees on federal land when 1,600 other cattle farmers do... and get's away with it for 20 years... and has support... I don't think the show of force by the government goon squads is necessary either. So true and yet the feds are backing off. Of course was this event a wag the dog example? What is Obama doing that he does not want us to know about?
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Apr 12, 2014 22:07:25 GMT -5
Some bureaucrat finally decided to do his job.
There are 2 in the wrong here.
The government for not collecting them all along (someone was derelict in his job) The rancher knew he owed the money (he is criminal)
Nope. He was on TV last night, saying he's willing to pay, but not to the Feds, since it's not Federal land. It's state land. WHO is his agreement/contract with ?
He should have paid them so if he didn't HE WAS WRONG and remains in the wrong until he does.
He is being a weasel using this state/federal land BS that you are espousing. .
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Apr 12, 2014 22:25:18 GMT -5
I have to agree with Charlie, this could be a test of the Govt take over. Charlie Daniels: First test of military against citizens? HEAVILY-ARMED FEDS SURROUND NEVADA RANCH... FAA Orders No Fly Zone... Cell Towers Shut Down? County Commissioner Says Bundy Supporters 'Better Have Funeral Plans'... Lawmaker: Cattle Roundup 'Reminded Me Of Tiananmen Square'... Militia Members Arrive: We're not 'afraid to shoot'... Supporters gather outside LVPD headquarters... Rangers Brought in From Out of State... Charlie Daniels: First test of military against citizens? Feds Refuse to Say If They've Euthanized Cattle... BREAK: Sen. Reid/Chinese gov't takeover of ranch for solar farm? drudgereport.com/I can only speak for me... but I'm gonna be on the government's side in situations like this... like like Brusett and Miles City... Charlie Daniels is an idiot and a fool... No he's not, he's part of the rare true Americans that see the truth about our crooked Govt, which has gotten 10 times worse under obozo
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2014 22:51:09 GMT -5
This whole thing doesn't make much sense on a number of different levels.
If this is federal land, then why doesn't the government have some sort of judgment or lien for the unpaid fees? Once they've established that they're legally entitled to payment, they can seize bank accounts, intercept any tax refunds the guy has coming, take any receipts from sales of cattle, sell the guy's ranch at auction, etc. It hardly seems necessary to send armed rangers in to take cattle.
Mr. Bundy, on the other hand, isn't claiming to actually own the land, yet he claims the federal government doesn't, either. He would appear to be on rather shaky legal ground in that respect, yet, as a citizen, he would have been perfectly within his rights to file suit against the Bureau of Land Management.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Apr 12, 2014 23:09:29 GMT -5
There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy singlehandedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero. Thank you for your post. That clarifies things a bit. Do you have any interesting links? We're on the east coast, where rental of pasturage and hayfields is done between private parties-- for the little bit of agricultural land Maryland has left that hasn't been turned into bedroom "McMansion" developments for rich folks who work in Washington, DC.
|
|