Video - Journey to the Bat Cave

[copperpot]

Yes it is. Why do you think these so called environmentalist want so much land protected from intrusion by making it a "wilderness area? They grow their pot there. I have come across the signs of pot growers in the middle of the desert, near a water supply of course, in Arizona and S. California. I have come across pot fields in the forests of N. California as well.

So yes I carry, just because some asshat wants to make a buck off someone else's habit.

Yeah, I think I saw a documentary where N. California is a big area for growing pot. "The triangle" they called it I think.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[deducer]

Yes it is. Why do you think these so called environmentalist want so much land protected from intrusion by making it a "wilderness area? They grow their pot there. I have come across the signs of pot growers in the middle of the desert, near a water supply of course, in Arizona and S. California. I have come across pot fields in the forests of N. California as well.

So yes I carry, just because some asshat wants to make a buck off someone else's habit.

These "asshats" or environmentalists as you call them, are trying to protect your right to walk through those national parks, so they are most definitely not your enemy.

Your real enemy is big money and government; for example, bill 687

 

[gollum]

LVBob and Deducer,


The fact of the matter is somewhere in between the two of you.


MOST environmentalists understand that the population of the United States has doubled since 1950. Quadrupled since 1900.The more our population grows, the more people there are that want to get away from all the urban sprawl where most of them live and work (myself included). So, every year, more and more people venture out into State and National Parks. Its a simple matter of numbers. In 1950, the population of Phoenix was about 105,000. In 2015 it is about 4.5 million. Phoenix's population has increased by about 49X since 1950. How many more people every year are hiking around the Supers now? Without some kind of regulations governing what they can and can't remove or do while they are there, we would have 49X the trash and prospect holes dug now than 65 years ago (in theory). In 1950, if 1,000 people every year went hiking in the mountains and dug up a barrel cactus to take home for their garden, THAT would not be a big a load on the ecosystem. Now, in 2015, multiply that times 49 (49,000). It would take every Barrel Cacti in the mountains and then a ton more. You wouldn't be able to find one out there. MOST environmentalists are just doing what they believe is the best they can to keep the wilderness as pristine as possible so the yearly growing numbers of visitors will always have something to enjoy.


The problem is that the Government has become a bunch of bullies. Thirty years ago, if they wanted to check a miner's permits, they just drove out, talked to the claim holder, and asked to see their paperwork. Hell, they saw them all the time, and a lot of times got to be quite friendly and knew all the miners in the areas where they patrolled. Now, you read stories about SWAT Vans showing up at claimsites with heavily armed jerks pushing people around. Confiscating legally stored equipment at a claimsite without contacting the easily found claimholder. If Uncle Sam wants the property you own, they can force you out by using imminent domain laws, then sell your property to some developer that will generate a bunch of tax revenue for the city/county/state/feds. For instance, when California and the Feds wanted to turn Death Valley into a national monument, they had a problem. A crap-ton of mining claims and prospectors were already out there. The only way to get rid of them would be to prove their mines/claims weren't generating enough gold/silver/whatever to make it worthwhile to keep open. So, they sent inspectors to all the small mines to take samples for assay. The miners would show them the working veins, but the inspectors would sample a shaft wall fifty feet from the vein being worked. That way, the assays showed almost nothing of value, so Uncle Sam could kick out the miners, and now we have Death Valley National Monument.


Why would they do something like that? EASY! The environmentalists (I.E. Sierra Club) says to the BLM "We want to get rid of the miners digging holes all over and trashing the mountains. We want you to do that for us. You help us, and we have a strong lobby that can generate funding for the BLM from Congress." Sierra Club gets Congress to up the BLM Budget by a few million dollars, and the BLM does whatever it has to do to keep the source of their money happy.


Now, there's all kinds of BLM folks. Most good, some bad, and a few really bad. I have run into all kinds over the years. Most have been courteous and professional. Helpful if I had questions or needed assistance. I had a ledge fall out from under my front end one time. Dropped the front end of my truck about four feet down onto a rock, which punched through my oil pan and broke a main bearing girdle (read: trashed my engine). I hiked several miles through the Borrego Badlands in 110+ degree heat (July) to the Ocotillo Wells Ranger Station. The Ranger I talked to took me back out in a P/U with a winch and got me unstuck, then towed me out to the pavement where AAA would come and hook me up. It took about five hours. The guy wouldn't accept a dollar from me, so after I got home, I took another car out to Borrego Springs and got the guy a $100 Gift Certificate at Carlee's Place (restaurant/bar). He would probably have refused that too, so I just put it in an envelope with his name on it and gave to another Ranger to give to him.


Mike

 

[Las Vegas Bob]

Now, there's all kinds of BLM folks. Most good, some bad, and a few really bad. I have run into all kinds over the years. Most have been courteous and professional. Helpful if I had questions or needed assistance. I had a ledge fall out from under my front end one time. Dropped the front end of my truck about four feet down onto a rock, which punched through my oil pan and broke a main bearing girdle (read: trashed my engine). I hiked several miles through the Borrego Badlands in 110+ degree heat (July) to the Ocotillo Wells Ranger Station. The Ranger I talked to took me back out in a P/U with a winch and got me unstuck, then towed me out to the pavement where AAA would come and hook me up. It took about five hours.

What this guy did was really cool. I am surprised that that someone didn't try to hit you for cleaning up an oil spill, that would have been my luck.

 

[Las Vegas Bob]

These "asshats" or environmentalists as you call them, are trying to protect your right to walk through those national parks, so they are most definitely not your enemy.

Your real enemy is big money and government; for example, bill 687

Thanks for your thoughts on this subject.

In NV the government owns 78% of the land and that includes wilderness areas set up for the environmentalist.

Some of these areas are places that I used to take my son when he was young places where we could drive a vehicle into and enjoy the area.

Now because these same areas are closed off to any form of vehicle traffic he (my son) can not share the same experiences with his young son because of the regulations that are suppose to preserve this lands for "future generations" my grandson is a future generations and he cannot enjoy any of this as his father did with me.

So who's rights are they protecting? One such area has 109 million acres set aside to protect bugs and flowers.

That is not protecting my right to be on and use these lands.


Another such area where I use to take my son near Vegas now has 48,438 acres set aside for no vehicular traffic. 48,438 acres and all you can do is walk there or ride a horse if you are affluent enough to own one.

The environmentalist even tried to get tour helicopter flights banned from flying over this area as they head to the Grand Canyon and Lake Mead because they allegedly scared some of the wild life. The helicopters have been using this flight path for years, way before the "wilderness area was formed.


You can believe what you want but to save something for future generations by denying anyone but hikers to enter millions of acres of wilderness is not saving it for anyone except themselves and their own purposes.

 

[cactusjumper]

Personally, I don't go out in public without being armed. I have a .38 for weddings, bar mitzvahs and social occasions. For other outings I prefer .45s.

Used to carry an M-1 Garand into the supe's as well as a Colt .45 Eventually gave up the rifle....too much weight and just carried a hand gun.

In over 50 years, I never needed a weapon.

To each his own.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Now I'm confused... I'm calling BS on a guy who's calling BS on a guy who created the BS... and I'm the bad guy?

It's simple, when you call a TV program fake, your breaking no rules, when you call a TN member a liar its personal and it is violating TN rules.....

 

[Hal Croves]

Personally, I don't go out in public without being armed. I have a .38 for weddings, bar mitzvahs and social occasions. For other outings I prefer .45s.

Used to carry an M-1 Garand into the supe's as well as a Colt .45 Eventually gave up the rifle....too much weight and just carried a hand gun.

In over 50 years, I never needed a weapon.

To each his own.

Joe Ribaudo

50 years of carrying around a gun that you never needed. Makes a good argument for not having to carry one.
I hate NJ gun laws (makes it near impossible to own a gun or even a BB gun) but I have to say that living armed and in constant fear for half a century seems no way to live.
Just an opinion.

oro-
I think that trying to shoot a big kitty off a friends back without killing him/her would be a neat trick.
And if you didnt kill that kitty instantly, and only wounded it, you would be in fatal trouble.
Let me see if I can find an example.

 

[azblackbird]

50 years of carrying around a gun that you never needed. Makes a good argument for not having to carry one.

I've got several fire extinguishers and smoke alarms that I haven't used in 20 years since I bought my house... should I throw them away since they're "not needed"?

 

[deducer]

Thanks for your thoughts on this subject.

In NV the government owns 78% of the land and that includes wilderness areas set up for the environmentalist.

Some of these areas are places that I used to take my son when he was young places where we could drive a vehicle into and enjoy the area.

Now because these same areas are closed off to any form of vehicle traffic he (my son) can not share the same experiences with his young son because of the regulations that are suppose to preserve this lands for "future generations" my grandson is a future generations and he cannot enjoy any of this as his father did with me.

So who's rights are they protecting? One such area has 109 million acres set aside to protect bugs and flowers.

That is not protecting my right to be on and use these lands.


Another such area where I use to take my son near Vegas now has 48,438 acres set aside for no vehicular traffic. 48,438 acres and all you can do is walk there or ride a horse if you are affluent enough to own one.

The environmentalist even tried to get tour helicopter flights banned from flying over this area as they head to the Grand Canyon and Lake Mead because they allegedly scared some of the wild life. The helicopters have been using this flight path for years, way before the "wilderness area was formed.


You can believe what you want but to save something for future generations by denying anyone but hikers to enter millions of acres of wilderness is not saving it for anyone except themselves and their own purposes.

I understand your perspective, but as Mike (Gollum) states, the population has quadrupled since the 1950's so there are far more trucks and ATV's now and they are tearing up the wilderness (Kollenborn just ranted about this on FB), so I can understand the banning of such vehicles. At the least, they are allowing you to walk on it, and enjoy the wilderness.

If Resolution Copper Mining, LLC has their way, you would be shot or at the very least, prosecuted for trespassing on the same property you grew up exploring (which they will ruin beyond repair before running out of business). How screwed up is that?

Don't you think that's far worse than anything any of those "environmentalists" are doing?

 

[Old]

Victor,
Just my take on the gun issue but I feel you have it backwards. Its not 50 years of being armed and living in constant fear. Its 50 years of being armed and being confident in the ability to adequately defend yourself and others. The constant fear would come from NOT being able to adequately defend yourself.

With gun ownership comes responsible handling and familiarity with the weapon. One has to make decisions and prepare themselves long before an instance for deadly use arises. Its not a toy for a bluff or a prop to enlarge one’s ego. Its made to kill. To kill either human or animal. And; if that’s not something you can (well ahead of time) come to terms with, then guns shouldn’t be your weapon of choice.

One has to have already resolved to use the gun to kill if the situation comes into being. It must be an instant reaction and not something weighed at the time. There isn’t time for that.

I’ll give you a glimpse of a real life situation that solidified my resolve on gun ownership years ago. A young family lived not far from here. They were advertising a vehicle they had for sale. A man came and looked at the vehicle and said he was interested in purchasing it and would return with the money to purchase. They husband said he would be way for a few days and to return on such and such date to finalize the purchase.

The man returned in the night while the husband was away. Broke into the home and molested the wife. The young son, about age 4, awoke during the scuffle and told the man “I’m going to tell my Daddy” and ran for the door. The man charged for the son and the woman broke away and ran for a kitchen knife. Her only means of defense. Dragging the son back with him the man was able to wrestle the knife from the woman. He used that knife to cut first her throat and then the son’s. This the villain told in his admission of guilty.

If only she had a gun to run to instead of the knife. The what ifs of that very real story are a lesson. Sure there is the other side of the story of the dangers of having a gun. But; when push comes to shove……….my choice is having the gun.

As to animals you may encounter……. I don’t know about Arizona but around this part of the country rabies is becoming all the more prevalent. Animals with rabies lose their natural fear of humans and attack rather than shy away. In that situation I want to drop that animal long before it’s in close enough range to sling saliva in my direction. Beating it off with a stick may work but chances are you are going to have enough contact that the series of belly shots for the preventative drugs would be in your future. And; the animal is going to be just as dead as it would have been if you had dropped it at 30 paces. A well placed shot avoids the animal passing the disease to you and other animals they encounter before the disease takes its course.

My discussion is not to try to convince those opposed to fire arms to become carriers. In fact, I believe that is dangerous if they are not of a mind set to do so. It’s to try to instill tolerance for those who have made the choice to be responsible carriers. There is wisdom on both sides of the issue.

 

[copperpot]

Victor,
Just my take on the gun issue but I feel you have it backwards. Its not 50 years of being armed and living in constant fear. Its 50 years of being armed and being confident in the ability to adequately defend yourself and others. The constant fear would come from NOT being able to adequately defend yourself.

With gun ownership comes responsible handling and familiarity with the weapon. One has to make decisions and prepare themselves long before an instance for deadly use arises. Its not a toy for a bluff or a prop to enlarge one’s ego. Its made to kill. To kill either human or animal. And; if that’s not something you can (well ahead of time) come to terms with, then guns shouldn’t be your weapon of choice.

One has to have already resolved to use the gun to kill if the situation comes into being. It must be an instant reaction and not something weighed at the time. There isn’t time for that.

I’ll give you a glimpse of a real life situation that solidified my resolve on gun ownership years ago. A young family lived not far from here. They were advertising a vehicle they had for sale. A man came and looked at the vehicle and said he was interested in purchasing it and would return with the money to purchase. They husband said he would be way for a few days and to return on such and such date to finalize the purchase.

The man returned in the night while the husband was away. Broke into the home and molested the wife. The young son, about age 4, awoke during the scuffle and told the man “I’m going to tell my Daddy” and ran for the door. The man charged for the son and the woman broke away and ran for a kitchen knife. Her only means of defense. Dragging the son back with him the man was able to wrestle the knife from the woman. He used that knife to cut first her throat and then the son’s. This the villain told in his admission of guilty.

If only she had a gun to run to instead of the knife. The what ifs of that very real story are a lesson. Sure there is the other side of the story of the dangers of having a gun. But; when push comes to shove……….my choice is having the gun.

As to animals you may encounter……. I don’t know about Arizona but around this part of the country rabies is becoming all the more prevalent. Animals with rabies lose their natural fear of humans and attack rather than shy away. In that situation I want to drop that animal long before it’s in close enough range to sling saliva in my direction. Beating it off with a stick may work but chances are you are going to have enough contact that the series of belly shots for the preventative drugs would be in your future. And; the animal is going to be just as dead as it would have been if you had dropped it at 30 paces. A well placed shot avoids the animal passing the disease to you and other animals they encounter before the disease takes its course.

My discussion is not to try to convince those opposed to fire arms to become carriers. In fact, I believe that is dangerous if they are not of a mind set to do so. It’s to try to instill tolerance for those who have made the choice to be responsible carriers. There is wisdom on both sides of the issue.

Agreed 100%. I remember a college justice studies class I had before that it is a fact, and a statistical fact, by our own Federal government and Justice Department that crime is lower in communities where law-abiding citizens have more guns, as opposed to communities that has gun control, which has more crime. Even if you don't use a gun in 50 years, it is still a deterrent to crime for you, and others around you that you are protecting/defending by default. It is a blessing not to have to use it in 50 years, and we can still can not predict the future.

 

[RG1976]

Discussions of gun control & politics has the potential to really get heated.

I think we should respect the viewpoints of others and move on.

 

[deducer]

Old, I agree with your philosophy of gun use.

I believe that you never pull your gun and point it at something or someone if you're not prepared to kill them or severely injure them in an act of self-defense. The act of pulling and/or pointing a gun pretty much moves you beyond the point of no return. It's effectively sending a message that you're no longer negotiating or compromising.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

50 years of carrying around a gun that you never needed. Makes a good argument for not having to carry one.
I hate NJ gun laws (makes it near impossible to own a gun or even a BB gun) but I have to say that living armed and in constant fear for half a century seems no way to live.
Just an opinion.

oro-
I think that trying to shoot a big kitty off a friends back without killing him/her would be a neat trick.
And if you didnt kill that kitty instantly, and only wounded it, you would be in fatal trouble.
Let me see if I can find an example.

I'm armed and I don't live in fear either.

I don't buy car insurance, home insurance, hurricane insurance, health insurance or home alarm system out of fear, I buy it incase I ever need it. I may never need my firearm, but there is always that one time chance I do need it just like my hurricane insurance or flood insurance.

I am the front line of defense for my wife and I and no way am I ever waiting for 911 to dispatch police to protect my wife and I durring a home invasion, they can come pick up the bodies while we wait....

 

[releventchair]

I understand your perspective, but as Mike (Gollum) states, the population has quadrupled since the 1950's so there are far more trucks and ATV's now and they are tearing up the wilderness (Kollenborn just ranted about this on FB), so I can understand the banning of such vehicles. At the least, they are allowing you to walk on it, and enjoy the wilderness.

If Resolution Copper Mining, LLC has their way, you would be shot or at the very least, prosecuted for trespassing on the same property you grew up exploring (which they will ruin beyond repair before running out of business). How screwed up is that?

Don't you think that's far worse than anything any of those "environmentalists" are doing?

A great deal for those who can walk. Not enjoyable for those who don't have the ability.
Our national parks were established to save some sites for the public to enjoy.
Human impact occurs as a result.
Should wilderness be preserved for wilderness's sake? The wilderness out west is dead and gone. Realtor's sold it, people tromped all over it ,at least what the government does not own.
It's holdings are as always subject to change of use and ownership when not a park.
The environmentalist's desire to try to retain a pristine condition always reminds me of the lady squawking that I was killing the grass detecting when her amply proportioned self stood on concrete waiting to buy ice cream from a building and developed area that was not there when I was a kid.
As she and the masses assaulted the fake beach with it's plastic mesh and hauled in sand I'm sure they felt all was pristine and their impact on the area was minuscule.
I have no use for a fake beach or sand or concrete or people on my childhood lakeshore but they are allowed.
Spread out people! Ohh, you can't. What a word. Can't.....
We need to save a desert/plain/forest/waterway and put it under glass for the future; so keep out.
Environmentalist's could help California control fire fuel around populated areas. Help establish desalinization plants to quit robbing the environment and wildlife of precious water. Do any live there? Or water their yards, or swim in their own pool? They need to save themselves first by reducing their own impact and footprint, then the environment, cause it ain't working now.

 

[Oroblanco]

50 years of carrying around a gun that you never needed. Makes a good argument for not having to carry one.
I hate NJ gun laws (makes it near impossible to own a gun or even a BB gun) but I have to say that living armed and in constant fear for half a century seems no way to live.
Just an opinion.

oro-
I think that trying to shoot a big kitty off a friends back without killing him/her would be a neat trick.
And if you didnt kill that kitty instantly, and only wounded it, you would be in fatal trouble.
Let me see if I can find an example.

　
It is always better to have the gun and not need it, than to need it and not have it. The one time that I learned that lesson happened in Alaska, after having lugged a heavy rifle around for months and not running into anything more dangerous than a willow ptarmigan, my partner and I both decided we were NOT going to keep lugging them while we prospected this particular day. It was mostly open ground anyway, just a few patches of willow. On the way back to camp, where the rifle and shotgun were stashed, we ran into the biggest Alaskan grizzly I ever saw in my life. He stood well over eight feet tall, as he rared up in front of me less than ten steps away, and directly in the path to the camp over a half mile away. He popped his jaws a couple of times and showed NO signs that he was going to retreat as most bears will, so we backed away and made a huge detour to get to camp. That was the only time I had no firearm on me, and the last time too.

　
On shooting a lion (or bear) that is attacking ME, I will be confident that my partner knows how to shoot, knows that if he (or she) can not get a clear shot, that firing a shot into the ground may do the trick without having to shoot it, that I will be doing my best to make it possible for a clear shot, that my partner will not be static, standing still, but will be able to move and get into a position to be able to fire. It is not such a trick as to be THAT difficult.

You may well be lucky enough to spend fifty years hiking the wilderness without ever once having a dangerous encounter with wildlife or dangerous people, but I have had several such encounters. I stand by the statement that it is always better to have the gun and NOT need it, than to NEED it and NOT HAVE IT. If you are ever in that bad situation where you need the gun, I am confident that you will agree with me.

　
On dangerous PEOPLE - there are a few whackadoos in this business of treasure hunting, and should you run into one (or more) of these guys, you really should be armed. It would be great if you could simply call the police if one of these nitwits tries to come after you, but that is not possible. There are criminals who use our wildernesses as their own 'hunting ground' too, and they prefer to target the unarmed hikers.
　

Besides, having the gun also opens up the possibility of bagging a rabbit for the stew pot, which after a couple of weeks of dehydrated foods, beans and pasta, you may find that meat is very welcome.

Hal I hope that you will change your mind and bring a good pistol with you when you go into the wilds, one that you have practiced with and are confident you can hit your target in an emergency. Ask our friend Cubfan about what it feels like, to have a mountain lion stalking you, when you are unarmed and exhausted, a long way from help. It is not something you want to experience.

　
Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek. Apologies for drifting off topic, please do continue amigos.
Oroblanco

 

[Eldo]

View attachment 1146796

Couldn't help myself.......

please get back to TREASURE hunting.....

and dont kill any of the treasures you find either...

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

Very nice post.

I have been threatened, almost from the beginning of my time on the Internet. Speaking your mind does not go over so well with a certain type of person. It's happened every year since we started the Rendezvous. You may have noticed that I show up despite the threats.

I do not live in fear. For awhile, after I stopped carrying a rifle into the mountains, I took a scoped, SS .454 Casull in my backpack. I could hit a pie plate at 300 yards with that setup. The recoil was brutal, but it made a very comforting BOOM!

Carolyn and I wish you and Beth the best. You know you are welcome in our home anytime you are out this way.

Take care,

Joe

 

[azdave35]

I understand your perspective, but as Mike (Gollum) states, the population has quadrupled since the 1950's so there are far more trucks and ATV's now and they are tearing up the wilderness (Kollenborn just ranted about this on FB), so I can understand the banning of such vehicles. At the least, they are allowing you to walk on it, and enjoy the wilderness.

If Resolution Copper Mining, LLC has their way, you would be shot or at the very least, prosecuted for trespassing on the same property you grew up exploring (which they will ruin beyond repair before running out of business). How screwed up is that?

Don't you think that's far worse than anything any of those "environmentalists" are doing?

resolution copper can take thousands of acres in the hewitt canyon area and use it to dump toxic tailings on...but a regular guy gets in trouble for digging a small hole or picking up a few rocks to take home...i guess if you have money you can do whatever you want on our public lands..but if your broke...you cant