Jump to content

Archived

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

just_chris

Nevada Rancher vs the BLM and Federal Govet

Recommended Posts

Absolutely hilarious.  

 

I love it when a bunch of ignorant ideologues start spouting off stuff they have no clue what they're talking about (how and why federal public land is federal public land), and then twist and contrive the story into something else entirely (spending too much on enforcement). 

 

This guy is a criminal.  Period.  He hasn't paid the lease rates upon public lands that you have to purchase and pay leases to graze upon.  In pure defiance of several court orders.  He's getting what's coming to him.  And the rancher should be forced to pay the cost of enforcement that the rest of us are spending on his dumb ass. 

 

As far as the states "getting back" federal public land... Jack.... read your history.  You're 100% wrong on this. 

irony since you are one of the most vocal ideologues on this board.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the self righteous holier than though attitude by those that feel they are more articulate and intelligent than other cracks me up.  Good morning entertainment on a slow work day.  Keep it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

irony since you are one of the most vocal ideologues on this board.....

 

But not ignorant, though...

 

But go ahead and explain how Bundy is in the right on this one.  I've heard one argument that may have an inch of traction (legally or otherwise), and no one here has picked up on it.  Every other justification is either factually inaccurate or pie-in-the-sky ideological hooey ("the feds took our lands and now they should give them back to the states!"). 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well with three strikes you are out and other conservative law enforcement measures we spend millions of tax payer dollars putting people in prison for minor non-violent crimes that should be fines or house arrest at best.

 

I guess "waste"  is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. 

 

Strawman anyone?  We can save the childish pot argument for another day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But not ignorant, though...

 

But go ahead and explain how Bundy is in the right on this one.  I've heard one argument that may have an inch of traction (legally or otherwise), and no one here has picked up on it.  Every other justification is either factually inaccurate or pie-in-the-sky ideological hooey ("the feds took our lands and now they should give them back to the states!"). 

I never said he was in the right.  I said the feds were well within their rights to seize his assets to compensate themselves for the lost revenue in grazing rights.  I just said the way they are going about seizing his assets was costly and stupid and could be done in a better more fiscally appropriate manner that yielded better results and didn't lead to anyone be they a BLM agent or Militia nut job getting hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But not ignorant, though...

 

But go ahead and explain how Bundy is in the right on this one.  I've heard one argument that may have an inch of traction (legally or otherwise), and no one here has picked up on it.  Every other justification is either factually inaccurate or pie-in-the-sky ideological hooey ("the feds took our lands and now they should give them back to the states!"). 

 

No one is saying Bundy is right.  The extremist regime is wrong though as well, very wrong.  Bundy has been paying grazing fees to Clark County.  The BLM has overtaken the property, which I don't understand if they took it from him, or from the county, but BLM has illegally staked claim on the property.

 

The regime spent millions to gather his cattle, when two guys could do it for $2k.

They are not auctioning off his cattle to pay debts, but instead they are destroying them.

They have surrounded the area and have armed guards on all entries.

Yesterday they beat several of the family (all unarmed), including using a dog to attack a pregnant woman, beating a 57y woman with cancer, and tazing several members of the family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is saying Bundy is right. The extremist regime is wrong though as well, very wrong. Bundy has been paying grazing fees to Clark County. The BLM has overtaken the property, which I don't understand if they took it from him, or from the county, but BLM has illegally staked claim on the property.

The regime spent millions to gather his cattle, when two guys could do it for $2k.

They are not auctioning off his cattle to pay debts, but instead they are destroying them.

They have surrounded the area and have armed guards on all entries.

Yesterday they beat several of the family (all unarmed), including using a dog to attack a pregnant woman, beating a 57ye woman with cancer, and tazing several members of the family.

I'd like to see where you're getting info that it's Clark Co. land. Everything I've read makes it clear it's BLM land and always has been. Bundy is using a state statute definition of "open range" as an excuse for not paying. He's in the wrong.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is saying Bundy is right.  The extremist regime is wrong though as well, very wrong.  Bundy has been paying grazing fees to Clark County.  The BLM has overtaken the property, which I don't understand if they took it from him, or from the county, but BLM has illegally staked claim on the property.

 

The regime spent millions to gather his cattle, when two guys could do it for $2k.

They are not auctioning off his cattle to pay debts, but instead they are destroying them.

They have surrounded the area and have armed guards on all entries.

Yesterday they beat several of the family (all unarmed), including using a dog to attack a pregnant woman, beating a 57y woman with cancer, and tazing several members of the family.

 

 

Clark County is not, and has never been, the proper depository for grazing fees.  I don't even know what they're doing with these fees he's supposedly paying... holding it in trust for him?  Treating it as a charitable contribution?

 

If I owe $10,000 in taxes to the IRS, I can't pay Ada County and pretend that gets me off the hook with the IRS, or in any way satisfies my obligations as a citizen to the US Treasury.  How ridiculous are these arguments going to get?

 

Second, it's extremely telling that the Nevada Cattleman's Association wants nothing to do with this guy.  At best they, along with the Nevada politicos, are pandering to their rural, conservative base by throwing weak darts at the federal government's supposedly over-aggressive posturing with Bundy.  It's a popular and safe meme for state politicians and organizations to hate on the Federal Government just enough that they don't harm the PILT and other federal tax dollars that come into the state.  If you don't remember, Idaho does the same thing.  Remember when Crapo and Simpson opposed the Stimulus and wouldn't take TARP money... until they did.

 

The fact that you think the "BLM has overtaken the land" means you simply don't understand what is going on here.  Really, that's the simple truth. 

 

The federal government, through the BLM, has always owned, controlled, and managed these lands Bundy is grazing on.  There is some dispute as to when these lands came into federal coffers... someone here earlier said in the late 18th century, but more likely it was after the Treaty of Hildago.  It was never state land; that is unequivocal, incontrovertible fact.  And it was never Bundy's land, either.  The fact that his family paid those grazing fees up until 1993 is legal proof of that.

 

What land there that is Bundy's that the federal government may be on to retrieve his cattle (which I'm not sure is even the case), they have a court injunction to do so.  Read the link I provided.

 

Lastly, if you've seen the videos making the rounds... it will probably take a full army or national guard to take these cattle, with the obstruction that his family, friends, and these militia are organizing.  If it costs money to get this guy to comply with several court orders and federal law, then make him pay the damn bill for the enforcement.  

 

If I break a law, and refuse to comply with authorities.... at some point it will take force to get me to pay the penalty required.  The BLM and courts have spent over 10 years, and likely closer to 20, trying to resolve this administratively and peacefully.  At some point, you gotta spank the child that isn't listening. 

 

If you're really trying to say that the mob that gathered and threatened and harassed the BLM weren't over the line, well my perception differs but those injured citizens are free to file lawsuits against the BLM, and I'll accept whatever the Courts decide in that situation. 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see where you're getting info that it's Clark Co. land. Everything I've read makes it clear it's BLM land and always has been. Bundy is using a state statute definition of "open range" as an excuse for not paying. He's in the wrong.

 

It's not clear to anybody.  As far as I understand all 3 parties are staking claim.  But all that is beside the point.  Your regime is over stepping boundaries to address the situation, and that is the main concern.

 

And it has not always been BLM.  Bundy's family owned the property long before the BLM existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clark County is not, and has never been, the proper depository for grazing fees.  I don't even know what they're doing with these fees he's supposedly paying... holding it in trust for him?  Treating it as a charitable contribution?

 

Yeah, I don't know what they've been doing with it either.  It sounds like they should be refunding it back to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're Ok with the round up but upset about methods and cost. Is that right?

 

Where did the $3 million number come from? Here's a quote from the Vegas paper which states it could cost about $1 million.

 

"The roundup could cost the federal government at least $1 million, according to government contracting records reviewed by the Review-Journal."

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/sandoval-chastises-blm-creating-atmosphere-intimidation-cattle-roundup

 

This Fox News report puts the price at $966,000:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/07/nevada-officials-blast-feds-over-treatment-cattle-rancher-cliven-bundy/

No one is saying Bundy is right.  The extremist regime is wrong though as well, very wrong.  Bundy has been paying grazing fees to Clark County.  The BLM has overtaken the property, which I don't understand if they took it from him, or from the county, but BLM has illegally staked claim on the property.

 

The regime spent millions to gather his cattle, when two guys could do it for $2k.

They are not auctioning off his cattle to pay debts, but instead they are destroying them.

They have surrounded the area and have armed guards on all entries.

Yesterday they beat several of the family (all unarmed), including using a dog to attack a pregnant woman, beating a 57y woman with cancer, and tazing several members of the family.

I'd like to see where you're getting info that it's Clark Co. land. Everything I've read makes it clear it's BLM land and always has been. Bundy is using a state statute definition of "open range" as an excuse for not paying. He's in the wrong.

 

Yes digger, I'd also like to see where your getting your information. Yesterday, the number was $3 million, today it's "millions". I posted two links that puts the number at just under a million, still seems like a lot but exaggeration doesn't help your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not clear to anybody.  As far as I understand all 3 parties are staking claim.  But all that is beside the point.  Your regime is over stepping boundaries to address the situation, and that is the main concern.

 

And it has not always been BLM.  Bundy's family owned the property long before the BLM existed.

 

Bundy's family never "owned" the property in question; they just used it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ownership of the land appears to be questionable.  I would be curious to see what the county has it listed as.  Was it homesteaded?  Was it part of the Govt land program before the BLM existed?  Paying grazing fees isn't always proof of ownership.  My family and friends have paid grazing fees to land that is owned by them, but through some odd restrictions the BLM controlled who grazed on the land.  They also were paid not to graze the remaining portions of the land that the BLM didn't control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you're right, I really don't know whats going on, but let's say worst case scenario the guy has refused to pay fees to BLM which is most likely the case........the feds are abusing powers and causing far more issues than just hiring a dozen guys to take care of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ownership of the land appears to be questionable.  I would be curious to see what the county has it listed as.  Was it homesteaded?  Was it part of the Govt land program before the BLM existed?  Paying grazing fees isn't always proof of ownership.  My family and friends have paid grazing fees to land that is owned by them, but through some odd restrictions the BLM controlled who grazed on the land.  They also were paid not to graze the remaining portions of the land that the BLM didn't control.

 

We pay grazing fees on our own property in Central Idaho.  It's not at the same price as BLM or Forest Service, but I think it has something to do with the county's outrageous noxious weed program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not clear to anybody.  As far as I understand all 3 parties are staking claim.  But all that is beside the point.  Your regime is over stepping boundaries to address the situation, and that is the main concern.

 

And it has not always been BLM.  Bundy's family owned the property long before the BLM existed.

 

 

No. They. Didn't. 

 

Ugh.  

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ownership of the land appears to be questionable.  I would be curious to see what the county has it listed as.  Was it homesteaded?  Was it part of the Govt land program before the BLM existed?  Paying grazing fees isn't always proof of ownership.  My family and friends have paid grazing fees to land that is owned by them, but through some odd restrictions the BLM controlled who grazed on the land.  They also were paid not to graze the remaining portions of the land that the BLM didn't control.

 

Do ya think the Court, in its various encounters with Bundy over this very issue, hasn't already taken that into consideration?

 

If I were a lawyer for Bundy, and if what you say were the case, don't you think the first thing I would have done is establish clear ownership, or in the alternative, cloud and muck up the ownership such that the argument you make holds water?

 

The simple, plain truth is lands that were homesteaded were designated private.  When Nevada became a state, through its enabling act it granted "unappropriated lands" (meaning, lands that were neither private nor given to the State) back to the Fed... willingly.  Of course, those being facts I clearly posted above, I don't expect anyone to actually read or understand or believe them.   :rolleyes:

 

Link again:  http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Library/Documents/HistDocs/1864Act.pdf

 

And yes, paying of fees to the BLM for however many years does establish cognizance of both ownership of those leased lands (BLM) and recognition of the obligation to pay said leases.  

 

Not to mention the damn US District Court has ruled on this on more than one occasion.  But hey, what's a Court opinion matter.  They're all activist judges anyway, right?

 

Jesus...

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do ya think the Court, in its various encounters with Bundy over this very issue, hasn't already taken that into consideration?

 

If I were a lawyer for Bundy, and if what you say were the case, don't you think the first thing I would have done is establish clear ownership, or in the alternative, cloud and muck up the ownership such that the argument you make holds water?

 

The simple, plain truth is lands that were homesteaded were designated private.  When Nevada became a state, through its enabling act it granted "unappropriated lands" (meaning, lands that were neither private nor given to the State) back to the Fed... willingly.  Of course, those being facts I clearly posted above, I don't expect anyone to actually read or understand or believe them.   :rolleyes:

 

Link again:  http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Library/Documents/HistDocs/1864Act.pdf

 

And yes, paying of fees to the BLM for however many years does establish cognizance of both ownership of those leased lands (BLM) and recognition of the obligation to pay said leases.  

 

Not to mention the damn US District Court has ruled on this on more than one occasion.  But hey, what's a Court opinion matter.  They're all activist judges anyway, right?

 

Jesus...

No it doesn't I clearly stated an example where this is not true.  Why do you have your panties in a wad here fella?  I have stated clearly multiple times that the feds are within their rights of collecting compensation for missed grazing fees.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it doesn't I clearly stated an example where this is not true.  Why do you have your panties in a wad here fella?  I have stated clearly multiple times that the feds are within their rights of collecting compensation for missed grazing fees.  

 

What are the "odd restrictions" regarding your family/friends payment of grazing fees for lands they own.  My bet is that it was either a voluntary conservation measure, a voluntary agreement with local BLM regarding split management of said private and public lands for a larger purpose, or some other federal law application.  Without details your exception doesn't mean much, nor is it even the issue here, as the Courts have clearly explained and expressed in their various opinions and orders.  

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...