Actually, I did cover that. It falls under the domain of being able to lawfully protect my investment. In fact, by the law in this state, I have every right to threaten you with a firearm if you are causing detriment to my livestock or land. (which can be no more than trespassing). I do not have the authority to shoot you, and I never said I did, but I do have the authority to threaten you with a firearm.

Also, yes. To an extent, though it may seem negligible to you city boys, but cows do their part to add to the nutrients as I have described. How do you think the nutrients needed to sustain life are moved around the food chain? Do you really think there are people out there who do nothing but fertilize soils to help plants flourish? No. Things such as these are added a little at at time by natural process. Sure, it won't make much difference to screw with one cow urinating in a stream. However, screw with an entire herd which does so daily and you will majorly affect the normal nitrate levels of that stream. See, law of nature: little by little the small things add up to a sum of a larger effect.

Any other comments, questions, etc?

~HoundDog

 

HoundDog...wake up. If you think you have the authority to shoot people...your crazy. and if you consider NH...the city. you need to read another book.

people have gone to Jail (forever) for shooting people for breaking into there homes. Once a Lawyer identified your intent and wether you life was in jeopardy. that would be the last we heard of you. You been spending to much time with your cows my friend. try to socialize yourself in the civilized world. what rights you think you have or may have had a 100 years ago, may not apply in today.

keep replying...i think we're getting a better understanding of your backwards Hick mentality. you value cows over human life....real nice. I'm sure you scare all the children. Big scary hick protecting his cows....ooh boy. terrifying lol.

lay off the dip...it's twisting your mind. you make as much sense as your signature/comment. lead dog? what!? this makes sense to who?

I'm done...but i still want video

 

As you requested, I am replying in rebutle to your last post. As to the comment of my "hic" ways, this term is usually derived from the way in which someone speaks more than their actions. As all can see, your dialect leaves much to desire when compared to mine. Now, enough mud slinging, lets get down to tacks. You claimed to NOT have misquoted me in a former post but now you do so again with purely intentional malice. I made no threats to shoot anyone. I did quote my right to defend my property with the THREAT of a firearm. This is law here in Oklahoma. Unlike New Hampshire, we have not allowed such legislation to pass as to refuse us the right to protect our property. And threat by firearm IS STILL LEGAL in Oklahoma. Here: Oklahoma House of Representatives Use this link and look it up if you like. Now, if you are through with the slander, I would kindly request that you reconsider your "HIC" comment. This word would scarcely apply to me. Perhaps your trying to make up for a lacking in your own eloquential skills?

~HoundDog

EDIT: And since your New Hampshire education has left you unable to decipher such a simple quip,

Translation of sig: "If your not in first place, your just looking at someone elses b*tt."

 

The part your not addressing in your arguement about leases, I was talking about forest service lands that are deemed multiple use. These are not places they plant hay for grazing. This an area of land that get to turn their cattle loose on for very little money and the cattle graze on the natural plants. Used to be that the only fences were forest service or private but they were to divide the area were the cows were allowed to graze from areas where they were not allowed. Now as the diiferent rancher get up there each one divides his area from the other, Fences everywhere. They are not supposted to limit peoples access. But they do limit access some of them think that they now own the forrest. They make their gates as hard as possible to get through including trying to make them too narrow for vehicles. Not all are like this, some will go out of their way to make access easy. But a lot of them try make everyone stay out so as to protect their cows. It is public land. I would never advocate doing anything on private property without the owners permission. The other end of your arguement about threatening someone witha firearm when you acknowledge that you don't have a right to shoot them. That speaks for itself, if you don't have a right to use it why threaten it. Just risks making it worse because now what are you going to do if they don't take you seriously. It can lead to them pushing the challenge and forcing your hand. It becomes a lose lose situation. I learned along time ago not to threaten to use anything unless I was prepared to use it. And I will bet money that growing up you messed with the livestock in some way. Note that the person who started this thread was there with the owners son when it happened.

 

Well, as to this dual-use land, I have had no dealings with such and so have no position on which to base an arguement. If it is the case as you say in which some ranchers are just being hard to get along with, I apologize for their behavior and assure you that is not the rule but the exception. As a rider in that area, I would pursue the case with the forest department. If this land has truly been set aside for public use, there will be laws regarding the fashion in which they can fence it and provisions will be made requireing them to provide cattle guard crossings or other throughways. As far as the gun issue, I buried myself with my first post as I am painfully aware of. However, I do not retract my statements as to my rights. And as to the threat, if the suspect (intruder) advances(calls my bluff) on me (defendent), I am then granted the authority to defend myself or my family with said firearm. You see, the way the law is designed is to allow a defendent to hold a suspect at gunpoint until the police arrive or the suspect can be told to leave (still at gunpoint). The gun is a form of safety for the defendant. If the suspect in any way puts the defendent in a "postion of possible bodily hard", the defendent then has the authority to carry out his threat. This is not fiction gentlemen. This is the law here.

Keep em coming. I always enjoy a good debate and am willing to keep this one open till we have resolved most of your forthcoming issues with this topic.

~HoundDog

 

Hounddog....scroll down and click that little number "2" next to the word "pages"...then scroll down to your post. see the cute little face you put in your post? read on. did you write that? what exactly did you mean? thank you.

Now. when your in front of a Judge/Jury and the parents of a kid or a wife/kids of someones husband you shot for roosting a cow. good luck with your defense. Theres a thing called telecommmunications...your expected to use it to call the law in this century and let them handle it. Any laws your reffering to...are old and dated....i would'nt count on them to protect you in the scenario you described (shooting at ATV's that are not threatening you)

ie; in NH we have what we call the blue laws. one states, there is no work allowed on sundays and goes as far as saying making love to your wife is against the law.

The law that you are reffering to...were put into place for a diffrent time.

i would add...by posting your intentions (foolishly) on the internet. you leave yourself wide open to have your own statements used against you, should such a scenario happen.

i apologize about the hic comment.

with that said. i won't bother replying to this thread again, you have sufficiently demonstrated you are full of yourself. i wish you and your cows the best.

Mooow.

 

Whether you care to further monotonize this forum with more of your repetitive questions or not is very inconsequential to me. I have made my statements time and time again showing both my opinion and my rights as outlined by current law and upheld in a current court case just last fall. These "blue laws" you are referring to can only be called such when considered inadequate or out of date by a panel of supreme judges overseeing the justification of the law. For a state law this would be the supreme court. You have managed to misquote, misjudge, and misinform me and other members of this forum with you horrible interpretations and skewed views of replies which I can only speculate that your hatred for these replies comes from a rebelious streak which the immorality of this original thread somehow fuels. You have called me adolescent and childish but you are the only one who continues to make repetitive claims over an issue in one of my previous posts which has been addressed several times previously. As to the "little face", I have no idea what you are talking about. I reviewed my posts and found no emoticons or "faces" of any kind other than in my first post showing my disgust for the immature acts which started this thread in the first place. If you are referring to something else, please enlighten me.

This will be my last post to this thread and though I hope it quickly dies to prevent others from reading more of kuz28's mindless attempts at belittling others, I hope some have gotten the message that there are those out there much like yourself, kuz, who are giving the rest of the ATVing world such a bad name and causing many of the problems we face in keeping our sport alive. You charge me with negligence to the law. I have provided hard evidence that I am well within my rights and you do nothing more than misquote me. I charge you with negligence to morality. Can you prove these claims false as easily?


Signing off from this thread for the FINAL time,

~HoundDog

 

Water is a precious commodity out west. For decades the ranchers here let their cattle go down to the river to drink, ****, sh!+, and eat every new sprout that came up. Ours is a wild river, with no dams. A stream by Eastern standards, it is the only river system in what is otherwise a desert. The river itself, 600 miles long, dries up and dissapears under the sand halfway across Arizona on its way to the Colorado River.

It seemed obvious to everyone, EXCEPT the ranchers, that POLLUTING the only source of water in such a desperate situation was pretty stupid. Finally, with efforts from the EPA, various environmental groups and with a little common sense finally prevailling, the cattle were fenced out of the river, even on stretches of the river that were privately owned by the ranchers.

The river had been a barren, bleak, strip of rocks and sand as long as anyone could remember. The only living things on the river were the cattle and the old cottonwood trees left from a previous time. As it is a wild river, with periodic flooding, everyone assumed that it was just that way. Each flood tore away even more topsoil and more farmland as the flooding waters cut into the banks built by the Army Corp of Engineers back in the 50's to control the flooding.

The ranchers said it was too much trouble to get water to their cattle without them being able to go down to the river, even though this is a river valley with an extensive irrigation system.

So the river has now been COW-FREE for about 5 years. It is now green and lush, with new trees and vegitation occupying every space previously trampled and eaten by cows. Now there is vegetation to hold the soil, and diffuse the power of flood waters. The transformation is miraculous and a testament to the resiliance of mother nature,,,with a little help.

The ranchers have had to water their cattle differently than their fathers did. That seems to be an overwhelming pattern with ranchers, they fight change with dogma and tradition, right or wrong.
Afraid that any change is a net loss for them.
Logic and proportion don't seem to enter the equation....
As they manifest their fears, they lose indeed.

Let's hope the ATV community doesn't make the same mistakes the ranchers have made. We have to organize, build alliances, and be willing to make reasonable compromises like promoting responsible off-roading, staying on the trails, (not roost the cows), keeping reasonable noise levels etc. The rancher approach to all of these issues has been like Ted Kizinsky (unibomber)i.e. Hide until you start shooting.

 

HoundDog,

These idiots (like all other half-wits who get themselves into an indefensible position) are looking for ANYTHING that will turn the spotlight away from them ever suggesting or supporting this assinine behavior in the first place.

These punks are generally well known in their communities for doing even stupider things than cow roosting..........what ofteny happens; is that they take their childish actions out into 'the country'; where long range sighted weapons, heavy digging equipment and morals are commonplace.

Generally, they aren't even 'missed'.....................[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

Then Blackballed wrote:
Gee Blackballed, don't you kind of RESEMBLE that remark?