To further confuse things... From ctag02's timeline:

• Borrel makes emergency landing on the property on 12/27/22; plane is insured by Starr Insurance Companies. (Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Petition)
• None of the fencing on the property was damaged during the emergency landing. (The Eagle, 3/16/23).

• The next round of the embryo project was scheduled to begin in early Jan 2023. (cgdorn post, 3/15/23 at 10:23)

• Gutierrez' cattle were penned at FAA's request following the emergency landing for an unspecified but extended period of time during which a neighbor's bull broke in and "messed up the whole program" resulting in cancellation of the embryo project contract. (The Eagle, 3/16/23)

• Retrieval of the plane within 1-2 weeks following the emergency landing would have resulted no "problems out there at all" according to Dorn. (The Eagle, 3/16/23)

The plane lands at the end of December, and AI is to begin early January. According to Dorn, retrieval of the plane within 1-2 weeks would have resulted in "no problems... at all".

Two weeks from December 27th is January 10th. If AI is to begin in early January, why wasn't the herd moved to Dorn's main facility in early January?

Not to mention that the above post pointing out that a few 20' panels and some T-bars could have adequately isolated the plane in about an hour's worth of work

So much of this doesn't add up.

Do y'all ever wonder if you just don't have (or need) all of the details between all of the parties in this silliness?

There is an entire board of folks that start threads about the government not being transparent enough. Your damn right that I want to know the details. That's why there is a Freedom of Information Act for crying out loud

Actually it's flipped. Apparently a catcher vs a pitcher. His cow embryos are apparently with a lot to brazilians. Unless a rogue bull causes trouble by pitching too early

GSS said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

They need to sort out whether this rogue bull was the young type that would have run down there to F one of these cows. Or the old, wise type that would have walked down there and F'd them all.

---

I'm thinkin' the rogue bull parachuted in, as there is only one small acreage pasture anywhere adjacent to the longhorns...

---

The rogue bull definitely parachuted into the property.. the rogue bull is owned by DB Coopers nephew …. Something's going on

DannyDuberstein said:

---

That's confusing to me as well. Or not choosing the option of throwing up some temporary fencing around the plane. If I'm potentially out $250k, my ass is headed to Home Depot or Tractor Supply to fence off this little plane. 2-3 hours total and I'm done doing it by myself

---

"Not so fast my friend." - FAA Investigator

AggiePhil said:

---

Jsimonds58 said:

---

Is that dude still coming down here to talk to the media?

---

Don't think so. He keeps saying the situation has been resolved.

---

AKA doesn't want to make it worse for him and the pilot. He already videoed him saying he made multiple mistakes and lied about the plane ransom and emotional distress (or whatever terms he used).

As much as he tried to play gotcha, I'm not sure Gryder has helped the pilot or himself any.

davido said:

---

AKA doesn't want to make it worse for him and the pilot. He already videoed him saying he made multiple mistakes and lied about the plane ransom and emotional distress (or whatever terms he used).

As much as he tried to play gotcha, I'm not sure Gryder has helped the pilot or himself any.

---

Do you have a link to the video where Gryder or the pilot admits to lying about the plane ransom and emotional distress?

Playing the YouTube monetization game.

if his bull semen is a multi million dollar business then why can't he pay market rate for a grazing lease, greed?
Nvm I know the answer

aggiepaintrain said:

---

if his bill semen is a multi million dollar business then why can't he pay market rate for a grazing lease, greed?
Nvm I know the answer

---

Inquiry minds want to know exactly that!

pretty sure it's not done in a field

aggiepaintrain said:

---

pretty sure it's not done in a field

---

I'd guess AI is done in a field regularly, just need to put the cow in a squeeze chute, some of which are portable and can be taken to the cows.

But this seems to be embryo or egg collection, which could be very different.

boredatwork08 said:

---

Playing the YouTube monetization game.

---

Don't want to derail but I'm genuinely curious how making a video private would help his monetization? Isn't the game to get MORE views / viewing hours? The more ads they can show the more you make, if I understand correctly.

boredatwork08 said:

---

Playing the YouTube monetization game.

---

Please explain how making a video Private maximizes monetization.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

aggiepaintrain said:

---

pretty sure it's not done in a field

---

I'd guess AI is done in a field regularly, just need to put the cow in a squeeze chute, some of which are portable and can be taken to the cows.

But this seems to be embryo or egg collection, which could be very different.

---

You have to get them into the chute, requiring a set of pens, either fixed or portable, and have the semen containers, supplies, etc at hand. Not impossible to do in a field, but pretty inconvenient

91_Aggie said:

---

boredatwork08 said:

---

Playing the YouTube monetization game.

---

Please explain how making a video Private maximizes monetization.

---

One thing I've noticed is, if he makes mistakes in the accusations he levels against others, by deleting the videos he can kinda cover himself. Whether that's a monetary motivation or not, I've no idea. But it's interesting to note, especially in this case.

You have to have pens and an alley to get them into the squeeze chute…

And to safely handle longhorns you need specially designed facilities

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

FishrCoAg said:

---

And to safely handle longhorns you need specially designed facilities

---

the corral on site there is not in good shape

---

What do you expect for $1?

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

The original video was just the 30 min interview from the video above.

Dan Gryder usually makes his videos private after a week, so he reposted the interview with the update to stay up permanently.

---

Correct. I'm asking about a video where the pilot or Gryder admits they were lying about being "extorted" for $250K as davido stated a few posts upthread. Unless I'm misreading what he said. I haven't seen that anywhere else.

I'm pretty sure that there was never any such video

techno-ag said:

---

91_Aggie said:

---

boredatwork08 said:

---

Playing the YouTube monetization game.

---

Please explain how making a video Private maximizes monetization.

---

One thing I've noticed is, if he makes mistakes in the accusations he levels against others, by deleting the videos he can kinda cover himself. Whether that's a monetary motivation or not, I've no idea. But it's interesting to note, especially in this case.

---

Do not worry Techno, this social uproar will die down and it will be back to (good old boy) business on Monday.

Did some digging today since there's continued discussion on this and I looked up the Texas Municipal League Economic Development Handbook. It's a good read if you need something to fall asleep. But here are some interesting bits pertaining to this issue.

Quote:

---

Additionally, there is a special statutory exception allowing a private sale of city-owned property if the real property is acquired by the city with economic development funds from the community development block grant nonentitlement program. Land acquired with these funds may be leased or conveyed without the solicitation of bids. To convey the land in this manner, the city must adopt a resolution stating the conditions for the conveyance and the public purpose that will be achieved.990 If the city exercises this option, the land may be leased or sold to a private for-profit entity or to a nonprofit entity that is a party to a contract with the political subdivision. The land must be used by the receiving entity to carry out the purpose of the entity's grant or contract as provided under Section 272.001(i) of the Local Government Code.

---

p. 159 of the PDF, marked as p. 154.
https://www.tml.org/DocumentCenter/View/1471/2022-Economic-Dev-HDBK-_Final?bidId=

In our case I don't think the city bought the land directly

But this is for property bought by a city and transferred to its economic development corp. Again, I think BBC bought the land directly but it makes sense the following rules would apply:

Quote:

---

Finally, for cities under 1.9 million, a transfer of title or interest in land to a federally-exempt nonprofit organization is also exempt from the notice and bidding requirements of Chapter 272 of the Local Government Code.998

---

p. 160/ marked as p. 155

Finally, toward the last page I found this under legal opinions:

Quote:

---

JC-0327: Non Profit Corporation Not Subject to Open Meetings Act
The board of the Bryan-College Station Economic Development Corporation, an EDC organized under the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act and not incorporated under the Development Corporation Act of 1979, is not subject to the Open Meetings Act.

---

This is not the BCS EDC but IIRC CS wanted out. Anyways, it stands to reason this legal ruling would also apply for the BBC.

TL/DR: (if I'm understanding things correctly, of course) the lease is legal. No competitive bids are needed. No open meetings are required.

No laws have broken. Those hoping for a Texas Rangers investigation will be disappointed.

techno-ag said:

---

Did some digging today since there's continued discussion on this and I looked up the Texas Municipal League Economic Development Handbook. It's a good read if you need something to fall asleep. But here are some interesting bits pertaining to this issue.

Quote:

---

Additionally, there is a special statutory exception allowing a private sale of city-owned property if the real property is acquired by the city with economic development funds from the community development block grant nonentitlement program. Land acquired with these funds may be leased or conveyed without the solicitation of bids. To convey the land in this manner, the city must adopt a resolution stating the conditions for the conveyance and the public purpose that will be achieved.990 If the city exercises this option, the land may be leased or sold to a private for-profit entity or to a nonprofit entity that is a party to a contract with the political subdivision. The land must be used by the receiving entity to carry out the purpose of the entity's grant or contract as provided under Section 272.001(i) of the Local Government Code.

---

p. 159 of the PDF, marked as p. 154.
https://www.tml.org/DocumentCenter/View/1471/2022-Economic-Dev-HDBK-_Final?bidId=

In our case I don't think the city bought the land directly

But this is for property bought by a city and transferred to its economic development corp. Again, I think BBC bought the land directly but it makes sense the following rules would apply:

Quote:

---

Finally, for cities under 1.9 million, a transfer of title or interest in land to a federally-exempt nonprofit organization is also exempt from the notice and bidding requirements of Chapter 272 of the Local Government Code.998

---

p. 160/ marked as p. 155

Finally, toward the last page I found this under legal opinions:

Quote:

---

JC-0327: Non Profit Corporation Not Subject to Open Meetings Act
The board of the Bryan-College Station Economic Development Corporation, an EDC organized under the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act and not incorporated under the Development Corporation Act of 1979, is not subject to the Open Meetings Act.

---

This is not the BCS EDC but IIRC CS wanted out. Anyways, it stands to reason this legal ruling would also apply for the BBC.

TL/DR: (if I'm understanding things correctly, of course) the lease is legal. No competitive bids are needed. No open meetings are required.

No laws have broken. Those hoping for a Texas Rangers investigation will be disappointed.

---

Except right after your bolded portion, "To convey the land in this manner, the city must adopt a resolution stating the conditions for the conveyance and the public purpose that will be achieved." Did the city adopt said resolution? That would have been public and would likely have been pointed to by now by one of the supporters on the thread, the BBC or the attorneys.

Right, but the part I referenced is why leasing is ok in that instancebecause it was in the public domain. The law in that section, even the bolded part, appears to apply to city purchases land so while informative is not the actual applicable law. I'm merely applying it in a like manner. This may be legal, but legal and right are two different things.