Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nevada Rancher vs the BLM and Federal Govet

0 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Not sure if anyone is following the story and I'm not seeing it in too many news outlets outside of local news but this has the potential to be really ugly.

 

Basically the feds have decided they are going to spend 3 million tax payer dollars to remove these cattle that are grazing on BLM land despite the fact that the Bundy family has had cattle on the land since the late 1800's. They say he owed them a million dollars so of course let's spend 3 million to remove the cattle and who knows what to surrond his property with armed fedreal agents. I had heard a rumor that some "armed citizens group" is supposedly on their way to help this guy out.

 

http://rt.com/usa/nevada-ranch-armed-feds-520/

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nevada-rancher-tense-standoff-federal-government-article-1.1751348

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I briefly read some stuff about it. Can't believe they are using armed agents to remove the cattle. Never should have let the blm acquire that much land

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This story is infuriating to me.  There's no legal reason for the feds to be involved in this.  The 10th ammendement applies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I briefly read some stuff about it. Can't believe they are using armed agents to remove the cattle. Never should have let the blm acquire that much land

 

It's a joke, they are saying because the land is under management because the desert tortoise calls it home... the guy isn't building houses or a freaking Walmart he is raising cattle. I wonder how much protecting of the tortoise there would be if this guy was closer to Red Rock and wanted to build million dollar homes..... oh yeah, none. This is all about the Feds flexing their muscle and screwing the little guy because they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Never should have let the blm acquire that much land

 

And that is the real crime. There is no reason for the Federal Govt to own the majority of the land in NV, AZ, NM, UT, and WY.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Sad story.  I have seen ranchers leave cattle on critical BLM elk wintering habitat and basically overgraze it to keep from paying for feed and increase their profits.  Often local BLM and Forest service agents won't enforce the grazing lease dates and look the other way due to good old boy networks and political connections from the rancher.

 

However sending in armed agents to do this is rather silly when you just take the guy to court and see if your claim holds up.

 

I would like to see quite a bit of the BLM land turned over to the states where it is located.  Sell it off or keep if for critical wildlife habitat or a state park/reserve based on each case but pull the feds out of it if possible.  would be a huge hit to some local schools and tax districts though if the federal cash stopped flowing from that ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Sad story.  I have seen ranchers leave cattle on critical elk wintering habitat and basically overgraze it to keep from paying for feed and increase their profits.  Often local BLM and Forest service agents won't enforce the grazing lease dates and look the other way due to good old boy networks and political connections from the rancher.

 

However sending in armed agents to do this is rather silly when you just take the guy to court and see if your claim holds up.

Haven't they been dicking around in court for the better part of 2 decades?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Haven't they been dicking around in court for the better part of 2 decades?

 

 

Didn't see that but if true then the courts need to hurry up and resolve who owns what

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Believe it or not, between BLM, USFS, NP, and DoD, the Feds own more than half the land in Cali.

Ownership doesn't appear to be the issue. It's BLM land. It says in the article that he hasn't paid his grazing lease fees (which are typically far below market) for more than 20 years. Did he think he could go on like that forever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It's a joke, they are saying because the land is under management because the desert tortoise calls it home... the guy isn't building houses or a freaking Walmart he is raising cattle. I wonder how much protecting of the tortoise there would be if this guy was closer to Red Rock and wanted to build million dollar homes..... oh yeah, none. This is all about the Feds flexing their muscle and screwing the little guy because they can.

it happens. We lost a boy scout camp ground due to it being the possible habitat for the preebles jumping mouse. Which ended up not being an endangered species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Believe it or not, the Feds own more than half the land in Cali.

It says in the article that he hasn't paid his grazing lease fees (which are typically far below market) for more than 20 years. Did he think he could go on like that forever?

he probably didn't think it would come down to armed agents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

he probably didn't think it would come down to armed agents

it happens. We lost a boy scout camp ground due to it being the possible habitat for the preebles jumping mouse. Which ended up not being an endangered species.

Desert tortoise is definitely endangered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If I hadn't paid the rent on a house I lived in for twenty years, would the owner of the property be justified in having armed police officers forcefully remove me from the property?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If I hadn't paid the rent on a house I lived in for twenty years, would the owner of the property be justified in having armed police officers forcefully remove me from the property?

 

Yes he would, but why do the Feds own 75% of the land in the west? Most of that land was originally to be held in trust for a few years and then returned to the states. It never happened. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In 2013 a judge ordered him to remove the cattle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If I hadn't paid the rent on a house I lived in for twenty years, would the owner of the property be justified in having armed police officers forcefully remove me from the property?

His land and ranch were there long before the BLM suddenly started saying he owed them money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yes he would, but why do the Feds own 75% of the land in the west? Most of that land was originally to be held in trust for a few years and then returned to the states. It never happened. Why?

I'd like to see the federal land in Utah returned to the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I could be wrong on this but from what I understand the Feds own more % of the land in Nevada than in any other state in the nation.... my guess would have been Alaska

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

His land and ranch were there long before the BLM suddenly started saying he owed them money.

His ranch is on federal government property.? I seriously doubt that. The guy is a deadbeat who thinks he is above the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This story is infuriating to me.  There's no legal reason for the feds to be involved in this.  The 10th ammendement applies.

 

It is federal land.  That family doesn't own the land.  They have no legal claim to the land.   

 

The guys father grandfather and great grandfather all paid to lease that land from the feds which acknowledged the fact they didn't have ownership. 

 

The guy should have been clapped in irons years ago and thrown in jail for stealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'd like to see the federal land in Utah returned to the state.

 

Yeah then you wouldn't have any right to use it.  Rich people would own it and fence it off limiting access the the normal middle class would be excluded.

 

This is ignorant thinking.

 

There are already multiple use laws that allow private industry to take advantage of these lands by logging, mining or running cattle.  In fact most of those who take advantage of those laws get a great deal.

 

Public land tracts in the west are one of the things that makes the west great.   If you want people to own everything move to Texas, see how easy it is to go fishing or hunting their without joining a club and paying for the privilege.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yes he would, but why do the Feds own 75% of the land in the west? Most of that land was originally to be held in trust for a few years and then returned to the states. It never happened. Why?

Returned to the states?

When the Feds gained control of the land after the Mexican War the states weren't even there yet. Department of the Interior was created to manage it. Nevada wasn't a state until the Civil War. New Mexico wasn't a state until the 20th century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yeah then you wouldn't have any right to use it.  Rich people would own it and fence it off limiting access the the normal middle class would be excluded.

 

This is ignorant thinking.

 

There are already multiple use laws that allow private industry to take advantage of these lands by logging, mining or running cattle.  In fact most of those who take advantage of those laws get a great deal.

 

Public land tracts in the west are one of the things that makes the west great.   If you want people to own everything move to Texas, see how easy it is to go fishing or hunting their without joining a club and paying for the privilege.

^^^THIS^^^

Right on Tool! I agree with you 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

^^^THIS^^^

Right on Tool! I agree with you 100%.

It hurts to say but tools is right.

Does the federal government need armed guards there? No. Is this guy stealing from us, the tax payers? Yes.

A federal judge ordered him to remove the cattle. He didn't. Sucks to be you. This has been going on for 20 years. What did he think was going to happen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yeah then you wouldn't have any right to use it.  Rich people would own it and fence it off limiting access the the normal middle class would be excluded.

 

This is ignorant thinking.

 

There are already multiple use laws that allow private industry to take advantage of these lands by logging, mining or running cattle.  In fact most of those who take advantage of those laws get a great deal.

 

Public land tracts in the west are one of the things that makes the west great.   If you want people to own everything move to Texas, see how easy it is to go fishing or hunting their without joining a club and paying for the privilege.

It's not for me, idiot.

 

It's for development of the state and the betterment of the education system here, which spends nothing on a per pupil basis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.