This is how a fight for freedom will start...

10 years ago

I agree, Kay. BLM has been pulling some real wicked crap and people have had it. They just pulled the same thing in Texas and in Utah. We've had fights going on over mining rights here in Oregon. Seems the EPA and BLM are closing everything down and taking anything and everything they want to take.

The Sheriff is supposed to have jurisdiction and they completely usurped that. The fight got heavy when they started manhandling peaceful protesters and putting up a "free speech zone". In other words - they went too far............way, way too far and because it's going on far too frequently now, it's really time we put a stop to it. When you can buy a home and never know when you'll be kicked out of it or for what, you don't own property. Eminent domain isn't supposed to be used just because some corp wants to put up a shopping center. That one happened out East somewhere and the land and homes are just sitting empty with nothing being done with it. They just kicked the owners out and took over.

Time to put some "land of the free" into a country thats falling under dictatorship of the federal government. In court - the feds wouldn't stand a chance on this one. They've violated about every law in the book. It was when the situation started to look like another Ruby Ridge unfolding the oathkeepers and militias activated.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9098751].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

I don't see how this case has anything to do with eminent domain. It says the rancher has used public land for grazing cattle without paying for grazing permits.

Tension growing between ranchers, mustang backers - Washington Times

RENO, Nev. (AP) - Tensions bubbled over on the range in a turf battle that has been simmering for decades over one of the icons of the American West and scant forage on arid, high desert lands from Nevada to Wyoming.

With the presence of wild horses continuing to pit animal advocates against ranchers, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which is caught in the middle, on Saturday began seizing hundreds of cattle from a longtime rancher that it says are trespassing on public land in southern Nevada.

The action came a day after the agency agreed to remove horses from the range in southwest Utah after Iron County commissioners threatened to take matters in their own hands.

Wild-horse protection advocates say the government is rounding up too many mustangs while allowing livestock to feed at taxpayer expense on the same rangeland scientists say is being overgrazed.

Ranchers say the government refuses to gather enough horses in the herds that double in size every five years while moving to confiscate cattle on lands where their ancestors have operated for more than a century.

The BLM says it’s doing all it can, given budget constraints, overflowing holding pens and a distaste for the politically unpopular options of either ending the costly roundups or slaughtering excess horses.

The agency started taking cattle Saturday from Cliven Bundy, who it says has been trespassing on U.S. land without required grazing permits for over 25 years. Bundy doesn’t recognize federal authority on land he insists belongs to Nevada.

[ 1 ] Thanks
6 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9098778].message }}

Claude Whitacre

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I don't see how this case has anything to do with eminent domain. It says the rancher has used public land for grazing cattle without paying for grazing permits.

Suzanne; Stop it. You're killing the momentum.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9098830].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

Something like this problem could become another Ruby Ridge or Waco - and could be a flashpoint. Media is pushing it as a left vs right story - but seem to me some in charge are angry the story is become public now when before it contained as a local issue.

Common sense should tell anyone if ranchers have been allowed to use grazing land for over 100 years - it probably doesn't hurt the land. If the desert tortoise is being killed to manage the population - it shouldn't be on an endangered list to begin with.

Basically - it's a land use fight and always has been.

"The BLM is figuring on taking my cattle by force I guess," said Cliven Bundy, 67, who estimates as many as 300 federal agents and other personnel had gathered by Friday in the area surrounding the ranch his family has operated since the 1870s southwest of Mesquite a few miles from the Utah line.
"I've tried to stop them for 20 years. I've tried to be legal in the courts. I've tried to do it politically and through the media. Now, it's about down to having to do it as `We the people,' `' he told The Associated Press on Friday.

It's a battle that has raged since the 1980s when the Sagebrush Rebellion challenged federal ownership of Nevada rangeland ranchers said was rightfully theirs. The family of the late Wayne Hage is still in court 30 years later in a fight with the federal government over the family's water and grazing rights north of Tonopah.

During the past 10 years, horse advocates have been more the aggressors, filing dozens of motions seeking injunctions and pursuing lawsuits aimed at blocking roundups they say violate the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burro Act President Richard Nixon signed into law in 1971. But in recent months, ranchers have again gone back on the attack.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9098860].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

Claude - you're no fun!
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9098863].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Something like this problem could become another Ruby Ridge or Waco - and could be a flashpoint. Media is pushing it as a left vs right story - but seem to me some in charge are angry the story is become public now when before it contained as a local issue.

Common sense should tell anyone if ranchers have been allowed to use grazing land for over 100 years - it probably doesn't hurt the land. If the desert tortoise is being killed to manage the population - it shouldn't be on an endangered list to begin with.

Basically - it's a land use fight and always has been.

Yes, it could tragically become another Ruby Ridge with all the paramilitary joining in. I don't think it's a matter of common sense telling you that it doesn't hurt the land. It's been in court for many years. It's public land. He's not paying the grazing permits and hasn't for 25 years. It's like me owning a lot of land and not doing anything with it, so someone comes along and sticks their cattle on it because it doesn't hurt my land to have cattle on it. They don't bother to compensate me in any way or ask permission. They just do it. I don't think I'd care for that much.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9098896].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Something like this problem could become another Ruby Ridge or Waco - and could be a flashpoint. Media is pushing it as a left vs right story - but seem to me some in charge are angry the story is become public now when before it contained as a local issue.

Common sense should tell anyone if ranchers have been allowed to use grazing land for over 100 years - it probably doesn't hurt the land. If the desert tortoise is being killed to manage the population - it shouldn't be on an endangered list to begin with.

Basically - it's a land use fight and always has been.

I'll take reality over "common sense" any day. As a long time Nevada resident, I've followed the background to this story for a number of years.

Reality is, cattle are destroying the land. Cattle don't move unless they are made to move, using all the resources in an area until there are none left. Horses on the other hand, are constantly migrating and far better for the land than cattle.

This is a matter of ranchers feeling they are entitled to government handouts. The BLM has constantly and deliberatly ignored the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, allowing ranchers to graze their cattle on land they have no legal right to.

Now, the BLM decides to finally enforce the law, due to pressure from many sources, and the ranchers start crying because they've had their gov handouts taken away. If they want land to graze their cattle, they can always buy it.

I suggest before people making up their mind about this incident, they read some background first. Madeline Pickens, (T Boone Pickens' wife) is a leader to help protect the wild horses and tells the other side of the story. Here's her site:
http://mustangmonument.com/about-mustang-monument/madeleine-pickens/

The ranchers should be thankful they got to use my land illegally for over 40 years for free.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9098947].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Reality is, cattle are destroying the land. Cattle don't move unless they are made to move, using all the resources in an area until there are none left.

Actually Kurt there have been numerous studies done that show cattle grazing can be beneficial to the land. The cattle eat many evasive plant species, break up the soil, remove the thatch layer and fertilize the soil. Studies have also shown cattle grazing to be beneficial to wildlife.
These ranchers have been moving their cattle from one area to another for over 100 years. Seems if it was distructive they wouldn't have been able to use the same land over and over for that long.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9098976].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Actually Kurt there have been numerous studies done that show cattle grazing can be beneficial to the land. The cattle eat many evasive plant species, break up the soil, remove the thatch layer and fertilize the soil. Studies have also shown cattle grazing to be beneficial to wildlife.
These ranchers have been moving their cattle from one area to another for over 100 years. Seems if it was distructive they wouldn't have been able to use the same land over and over for that long.

Actually Thom, the studies have shown that cattle in this area are destroying the land in this area. The reason they have been able to graze for so long is the amount of land they have access to for free.

Regardless, it's the law. The cattle shouldn't have been there since 1971 and the ranchers are crying because the BLM isn't doing their bidding any more.

Again, the ranchers can always buy their own land and not have to deal with the Wild Horse and Burro act, right?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099006].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Actually Thom, the studies have shown that cattle in this area are destroying the land in this area. The reason they have been able to graze for so long is the amount of land they have access to for free.

Regardless, it's the law. The cattle shouldn't have been there since 1971 and the ranchers are crying because the BLM isn't doing their bidding any more.

Again, the ranchers can always buy their own land and not have to deal with the Wild Horse and Burro act, right?

Ok that makes since I guess.
I do remember you posting an article last year about using cattle grazing to reclaim arid and semi-arid land in Africa. Also there are many studies that have been done showing the beneficial effects of grazing.
I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to this particular case, which is why I didn't comment on it specifically.
I do think when someones family has been using the same land for over 100 years and the BLM has been ignoring a law for over 10 years and suddenly decides to enforce it, that something is not as it seems.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099030].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

I don't claim to know all the ins and outs and I don't live in that state.

My concern is this kind of activity makes no sense. The BLM is giving people plenty of reason to hate them. And the internet is going to add fuel...

» Feds Assault Cancer Victim, Pregnant Woman in Clash With Bundy Supporters Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Reading about this incident today reminded me of Waco and Ruby Ridge. Both of those led to public outcry - and they happened before the internet became a common source of news and views.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099048].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

I don't claim to know all the ins and outs and I don't live in that state.

My concern is this kind of activity makes no sense. The BLM is giving people plenty of reason to hate them. And the internet is going to add fuel...

» Feds Assault Cancer Victim, Pregnant Woman in Clash With Bundy Supporters Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Reading about this incident today reminded me of Waco and Ruby Ridge. Both of those led to public outcry - and they happened before the internet became a common source of news and views.

Right there, Kay. This is what courts are made for and BLM thinks they can just go in and terrorize people. If they are so right - why didn't this go through court? How do they see it that they can invade land with a militia when the Sheriff has jurisdiction. How do we forget the land grabs in TX, UT, OR, WY in which the same gestapo actions were taken, and when there was no real dispute that the people they were harassing owned the land? How is it they feel okay to manhandle peaceful protesters - or tell us where "freedom of speech zones" are - or tase people in the absence of a threat to their own lives?

I really don't care who owns that land. When BLM starts acting like the military invading a country, they are in the wrong and need to be stopped. I think that's exactly what set this whole thing off.

Kurt - you'd have to show me your sources on cow behavior. From what I know of grazing species, and from what I know of scientists I respect, it is not right that if you allow them to roam, they won't. That's what browsers are. They eat the plant down then move on to "greener pastures" and the area they grazed is cleaned out, soil aerated and fertilized and plant life regrows. Um....that's why the buffalo leave Yellowstone sometimes. Cows do herd - but so do other browsers - the whole herds move on when they need more food, though. Saying that they will stay in one spot even after they've eaten food down to the soil level doesn't even make sense. Seems that if you were up on your animal science, you'd have noticed I accidentally called cows browsers instead of grazers.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099591].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Ok that makes since I guess.
I do remember you posting an article last year about using cattle grazing to reclaim arid and semi-arid land in Africa. Also there are many studies that have been done showing the beneficial effects of grazing.
I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to this particular case, which is why I didn't comment on it specifically.
I do think when someones family has been using the same land for over 100 years and the BLM has been ignoring a law for over 10 years and suddenly decides to enforce it, that something is not as it seems.

I need to add that my comments on this thread aren't about this specific case, and are instead about the problems with the BLM, ranchers and animal rights groups concerning wild horses in Nevada in general.

However, I don't think that just because the BLM ignored a law in the past means it should be assumed they will (or should) now or in the future. Just like I don't assume another administration will enforce (or not enforce) federal MJ laws in states were MJ and MMJ are considered legal by the states.

There's a lot of heavy hitters pressuring the BLM to abide by the law, including Madeline Pickens, which can explain any change the BLM has.

It would be interesting to investigate whether the BLM even had the right to lease the land in the first place, according to the Wild Horse and Burro Act.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099049].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

IN the case of this rancher - I think the lease was done before the BLM was created.
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099074].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

I need to add that my comments on this thread aren't about this specific case, and are instead about the problems with the BLM, ranchers and animal rights groups concerning wild horses in Nevada in general.

However, I don't think that just because the BLM ignored a law in the past means it should be assumed they will (or should) now or in the future. Just like I don't assume another administration will enforce (or not enforce) federal MJ laws in states were MJ and MMJ are considered legal by the states.

There's a lot of heavy hitters pressuring the BLM to abide by the law, including Madeline Pickens, which can explain any change the BLM has.

It would be interesting to investigate whether the BLM even had the right to lease the land in the first place, according to the Wild Horse and Burro Act.

Yep I agree again

She probably donated a bunch of cash to Reid. After all one of his former aides is a Director of the BLM. But isn't this about endangered Tortoises and not horses?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099089].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

Not sure, Thom. One of the claims made about this BLM "enforcement" is this rancher is not a Reid supporter.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099260].message }}
- ThomM 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Kay King
  
  Not sure, Thom. One of the claims made about this BLM "enforcement" is this rancher is not a Reid supporter.
  
  No Kay I was talking about T Boone Picken's ex-wife.
  A couple interesting things I learned tonight is, first the land is state land and not federal land.
  Second the Tortoise the cows are supposedly endangering aren't actually endangered by the cows.
  Also the Feds where going around the Vegas area and capturing the tortoise and holding them in pens, till it got to expensive to feed them and they started killing them off.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099285].message }}
  
  Kay King 10 years ago
  
  I know - but the claim is still being made in reference to this particular rancher. It's more fuel for his supporters who claim his anti-Reid stance may have something to do with the timing.
  
  What you found was what I was finding earlier that made me go "huh?"
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
  ***
  One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
  what it is instead of what you think it should be.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099297].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I don't see how this case has anything to do with eminent domain. It says the rancher has used public land for grazing cattle without paying for grazing permits.

Tension growing between ranchers, mustang backers - Washington Times

Yeah - that's what they are saying. The family claims they have had rights and paid for the rights for around 100 years now. This is the type of thing that courts were made for - the feds just decided to bully them off the land.

The family, also, is the last one in the area that refused to sell out for an insulting price when the feds tried to take over the land.

Now why would the Fed be buying people out if the land was theirs? Reporters can whitewash this just like they tried to Ruby Ridge or Wacco -- it's not being swallowed this time. We are under a gov that seems to think they own any damned thing they want to.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9098897].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Now why would the Fed be buying people out if the land was theirs? Reporters can whitewash this just like they tried to Ruby Ridge or Wacco -- it's not being swallowed this time. We are under a gov that seems to think they own any damned thing they want to.

The whole story is here
transients.info: Cliven Bundy cattle ranch dispute in the US state of Nevada

They purchased rights to use the land and the rights were passed down through two generations. Cliven was paying his taxes on the management of the land by BLM, and then decided he wasn't going to anymore. BLM then revoked his rights to use the land. The land was never his. It is public land and he wants to use it for commercial cattle ranching but doesn't want to pay the taxes.

BLM got a court order and the rest is in the link.

His troubles began in earnest when he stopped paying the taxes. I think that was a bad move on his part.

Personally, I think everyone involved should de-escalate immediately including the FBI and other law enforcement and the para-militia. This ending in bloodshed isn't going to be good for either side.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099016].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

Kurt - I understand what you're saying about the land use - though I'm not convinced the cattle are damaging the land unless the cattle population has greatly increased.

I understand and have followed the growing demands not to control the mustang herds by killing horses. The govt used to ignore such demands and "thin the herds" whenever they wanted. Now it's become more of a "correct" issue. As a horse lover, I'm all for that.

My understanding from a long time ago - not involved with this case - was that cattlemen PAID lump sums (large sums) for permanent grazing rights on this land. There were additional fees as well but the basic "rights" I thought were purchased and could be inherited. Am I wrong about that?

Didn't see Suzanne's post till after I posted this.

The other side of the argument:

*UPDATE: Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his herd’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch.

Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

It's not a cut and dried issue but you have to wonder why the big govt presence now - when this has gone on for so long.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099026].message }}

Floyd Fisher

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Kurt - I understand what you're saying about the land use - though I'm not convinced the cattle are damaging the land unless the cattle population has greatly increased.

I understand and have followed the growing demands not to control the mustang herds by killing horses. The govt used to ignore such demands and "thin the herds" whenever they wanted. Now it's become more of a "correct" issue. As a horse lover, I'm all for that.

My understanding from a long time ago - not involved with this case - was that cattlemen PAID lump sums (large sums) for permanent grazing rights on this land. There were additional fees as well but the basic "rights" I thought were purchased and could be inherited. Am I wrong about that?

Didn't see Suzanne's post till after I posted this.

The other side of the argument:

It's not a cut and dried issue but you have to wonder why the big govt presence now - when this has gone on for so long.

They are also rounding up wild horses, and the first earth battallion is asking why they are being rounded up for slaughter, and this rancher is allowed to graze his cattle?

This is a helluva complicated mess....and it's gotten to the point where it's exploding into Tea Party vs First Earth Batallion...the feds and county are stuck in the middle of this.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099852].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher

They are also rounding up wild horses, and the first earth battallion is asking why they are being rounded up for slaughter, and this rancher is allowed to graze his cattle?

This is a helluva complicated mess....and it's gotten to the point where it's exploding into Tea Party vs First Earth Batallion...the feds and county are stuck in the middle of this.

Well, maybe the feds shouldn't be taking their marching orders from T. Boone Picken's wife...

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099870].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

He never stopped paying 'taxes' - he stopped paying the grazing fees that the BLM demanded.

If the state owns the land, why is the federal government in the form of the BLM involved at all?

I don't know but I do imagine that wouldn't happen without the laws or State involvement in that.

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Well, maybe the feds shouldn't be taking their marching orders from T. Boone Picken's wife...

I don't think the feds should be taking their marching orders over public land from commercial cattle ranchers either.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099909].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I don't know but I do imagine that wouldn't happen without the laws or State involvement in that.

I don't think the feds should be taking their marching orders over public land from commercial cattle ranchers either.

Apparently this all started a number of years ago when BLM changed the rules about the number of cattle that could be grazed on the land, drastically reducing the number because of supposed danger to a turtle.

Neither the state of Nevada nor Bundy had any input into the rules change, so he quit paying the grazing fees.

Now it has become a question of states rights vs. federal, the courts having ruled that the federal interest trumps the state interest, invalidating the prior agreements that Bundy and his ancestors - and the state and county - had abided by for 100+ years.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099964].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

It's not one of those stories that is a "he did this - they did that" and done.

It seems in the 1800s, the rancher's ancestor paid a lump sum to lease the grazing land that was owned by the STATE.

Those leases were expensive and passed down through inheritance and there were grazing fees involved, too, to help maintain the land....paid to the state. He also had water rights - and anyone living in the west knows how precious that is.

In the 1940s the BLM was created. So now we had a federal agency overseeing "land management" for state owned land. As often happens, in time the thinking was that it was "federally controlled land" and BLM aimed for full control - and fees - from the land.

This rancher paid his grazing fees until the BLM ordered him to reduce the size of his cattle herd. At one time his family had 1000 cattle on this govt land - he was forced to reduce that to less than 200 by the BLM years ago.

The first claim was that he was to pay the feds. When he finally agreed to that after going to court, the BLM then demanded he reduced herd size. He fought that and lost and reduced herd size. Then the EPA came in and claimed protection of the desert tortoise (which it turns out didn't need protecting). Looking at the history it is hard to see this story as anything other than government interference in state rights.

According to the family members of the rancher - he did pay fees to Clark County, NV for years and was willing to continue to pay those grazing fees to the county/state. He was not willing to pay fees to the federal agency because they don't own the land....and the country stopped accepting fees on BLM orders.

The story doesn't seem to be primarily about horses or cattle or one rancher. It's more about the feds taking over land they don't own. The family claims Sierra Club and Reid have been pushing the BLM to take over the land.

The facts above are gathered from various stories and local news sources so may not be 100% but seems to be most of the story.

Kornze, the new BLM chief, is familiar with the area. He's a natural resource manager who grew up in Elko, Nev., and served previously as a senior adviser to Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid aide Kristen Orthman said her boss "hopes the trespassing cattle are rounded up safely so the issue can be resolved."

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100020].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

I'm not sure what Kay meant by "this is how a fight for freedom starts".

TL -

All I meant was this is the kind of incident that (if it goes bad) can end up being a cause even for those who have no interest in that state or horses or cattle or ranches. If this story becomes known as a fight against a bully federal government, people will take sides. It's the kind of story that can grow legs of its own.

There is perhaps nothing that will anger the public as much as having it's own government harm citizens. At Ruby Ridge and Waco there were people clearly in violation of laws but even so the govt was blamed for the incidents when people were killed.

I hope both sides will stand down and work it out but doesn't seem to be happening.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100045].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

TL -

All I meant was this is the kind of incident that (if it goes bad) can end up being a cause even for those who have no interest in that state or horses or cattle or ranches. If this story becomes known as a fight against a bully federal government, people will take sides. It's the kind of story that can grow legs of its own.

There is perhaps nothing that will anger the public as much as having it's own government harm citizens. At Ruby Ridge and Waco there were people clearly in violation of laws but even so the govt was blamed for the incidents when people were killed.

I hope both sides will stand down and work it out but doesn't seem to be happening.

In Ruby ridge, they DIDN'T violate any laws! He was even FOUND not guilty. Of course his son, dog, and wife are STILL DEAD!!!!!!!! If he WERE guilty, they could have simply gotten a search warrant, etc...

As for WACO? I have heard like 3 different versions of the story. In one case NOTHING wrong was done, just supposedly some unregistered weapons, never mind that some of those wouldn't be registered ANYWAY! We ALL know the US wouldn't care about a CULT. Polygamy is apparently not that bad, so that leaves underaged sex. THEY were incinerated. Some would say statutory rape is bad. How much worse is ROASTING though raped? BTW wikipedia says: Belief that federal firearms laws had been violated.

So, on a ****BELIEF**** the ATF roasted these people! Does THAT sound right? How about bringing the ATF up on torture and murder charges!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100094].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

You're right, Steve.

One thing of concern today is a claim online that FAA issued a one month no fly zone over this area. That would keep news copters out...and their cameras.

Federal Aviation Administration - Graphic TFR's

The rumors are the biggest threat to safety in this situation. Claims of cell phone towers down (doesn't seem to be true), of legal weapons being confiscated (not documented) will be taken as "fact" by those who choose to believe the worst of any govt agency. Fans the flames.
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100123].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

It's not one of those stories that is a "he did this - they did that" and done.

It seems in the 1800s, the rancher's ancestor paid a lump sum to lease the grazing land that was owned by the STATE.

Those leases were expensive and passed down through inheritance and there were grazing fees involved, too, to help maintain the land....paid to the state. He also had water rights - and anyone living in the west knows how precious that is.

In the 1940s the BLM was created. So now we had a federal agency overseeing "land management" for state owned land. As often happens, in time the thinking was that it was "federally controlled land" and BLM aimed for full control - and fees - from the land.

This rancher paid his grazing fees until the BLM ordered him to reduce the size of his cattle herd. At one time his family had 1000 cattle on this govt land - he was forced to reduce that to less than 200 by the BLM years ago.

The first claim was that he was to pay the feds. When he finally agreed to that after going to court, the BLM then demanded he reduced herd size. He fought that and lost and reduced herd size. Then the EPA came in and claimed protection of the desert tortoise (which it turns out didn't need protecting). Looking at the history it is hard to see this story as anything other than government interference in state rights.

According to the family members of the rancher - he did pay fees to Clark County, NV for years and was willing to continue to pay those grazing fees to the county/state. He was not willing to pay fees to the federal agency because they don't own the land....and the country stopped accepting fees on BLM orders.

The story doesn't seem to be primarily about horses or cattle or one rancher. It's more about the feds taking over land they don't own. The family claims Sierra Club and Reid have been pushing the BLM to take over the land.

The facts above are gathered from various stories and local news sources so may not be 100% but seems to be most of the story.

That's exactly what this is. If it didn't start here - it would be TX or UT or WY where they are just stripping land away from the people - and taking over sovereign states rights. It started as a little bit of "eminent domain" and recently it's been any land they want for any purpose.

Our feds are stealing every damned thing they can get their hands on, land and money, and this fight had to start somewhere. We've got new taxes and hikes coming down the plank that are going to stagger people when they hit. We have healthcare now being run by the IRS. Our educational system is being taken over and ruined. Our Bill of Rights is being trashed. And this -- is nothing but a clearcut case of taking over a sovereign state's rights. I think the time has just come that enough is enough.

Our constitution limited our federal gov for a reason. If you aren't sick of the stuff they are doing right now, you haven't listened to the people who were freed from the wall in 89. Serious - how far do you let fascism go before you put a stop to it? 100 million people died last century because they didn't. 100 million.

The Feds just stepped on sovereign soil, walked all over a state's rights, set up a "free speech" area for those who didn't like it. Manhandled people for not "obeying" their free speech area, tased someone so bad he bled when he was not even a physical threat, is stealing the cattle straight out, slaughtering some of it (can you say animal cruelty?), and now they are illegally destroying 100 year old wells and pointing their guns and anyone and everyone they seem to want to point them at (can you say war?). They wanted to come in and usurp that state war style - and they are getting one.

And they are doing the same thing in other places.... this is just the first one that they have finally met the resistance. The people are finally saying "stop".

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100552].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

For now.
Cliven Bundy fought the law... and he won | Rare

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100671].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

For now.
Cliven Bundy fought the law... and he won | Rare

I actually don't give a damn about that rancher, and don't want to do the research it would take to take sides on a dispute that has gone on as long as this one has, but I'm honestly glad for the de-escalation and non-violent end to this crap.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100685].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I actually don't give a damn about that rancher, and don't want to do the research it would take to take sides on a dispute that has gone on as long as this one has, but I'm honestly glad for the de-escalation and non-violent end to this crap.

So am I. Though I may not agree with it being crap.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100717].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

So am I. Though I may not agree with it being crap.

By crap, I mean far too complex to understand fully all of the legalities, issues, rights, etc. in a relatively short conversation.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100722].message }}

ThomM 10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

By crap, I mean far too complex to understand fully all of the legalities, issues, rights, etc. in a relatively short conversation.

In that case I do agree
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100728].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

For those wondering who owned the land, Bundy argued in court that the Feds didn't own the land and he lost, twice:

Bundy principally opposes the United States’ motion for summary judgment on the
ground that this court lacks jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public
lands in question. As this court previously ruled in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-
98-531-JBR (RJJ) (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), “the public lands in Nevada are the property of the
United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when
Mexico ceded the land to the United States.”

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-co...ndy-7-9-13.pdf

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100740].message }}

Floyd Fisher 10 years ago

According to what I heard on the radio, the fed have backed off for now....seems they actually are scared for the safety of everyone involved, and have decided to pack it in for the moment.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100677].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I don't see how this case has anything to do with eminent domain. It says the rancher has used public land for grazing cattle without paying for grazing permits.

Tension growing between ranchers, mustang backers - Washington Times

Apparently, their family has done this for a LONG time, and the land seizure relatively new. If that is the case, it is ILLEGAL for the government to take the land unless it is eminent domain. ALSO, there is the concept of easements! Easement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099318].message }}

Floyd Fisher

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I don't see how this case has anything to do with eminent domain. It says the rancher has used public land for grazing cattle without paying for grazing permits.

Tension growing between ranchers, mustang backers - Washington Times

That's the issue...he has claimed he owns the land for a century, they claim they own it (hence the grazing permit requirement).

Who really does own the land? I'd like to get to the bottom of that before I take sides. Government may very well own it legally, then again it may not.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099821].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher

That's the issue...he has claimed he owns the land for a century, they claim they own it (hence the grazing permit requirement).

Who really does own the land? I'd like to get to the bottom of that before I take sides. Government may very well own it legally, then again it may not.

No ... he hasn't claimed that he owned the land at all. He claimed that his great grandfather bought a permit to use the land and that permit passed down through generations to him. He initially paid the taxes for the use of the land.

The case went to court soon after he stopped paying the taxes and his right to use was revoked and the court ordered him to remove the cattle from the land, which he ignored. The land is owned by the State.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099846].message }}

Floyd Fisher

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

No ... he hasn't claimed that he owned the land at all. He claimed that his great grandfather bought a permit to use the land and that permit passed down through generations to him. He initially paid the taxes for the use of the land.

The case went to court soon after he stopped paying the taxes and his right to use was revoked and the court ordered him to remove the cattle from the land, which he ignored. The land is owned by the State.

If the land is owned by the State, why is he paying money to the feds at all?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099855].message }}

sbucciarel Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher

If the land is owned by the State, why is he paying money to the feds at all?

Per the article, BLM is managing the land.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099863].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

No ... he hasn't claimed that he owned the land at all. He claimed that his great grandfather bought a permit to use the land and that permit passed down through generations to him. He initially paid the taxes for the use of the land.

The case went to court soon after he stopped paying the taxes and his right to use was revoked and the court ordered him to remove the cattle from the land, which he ignored. The land is owned by the State.

He never stopped paying 'taxes' - he stopped paying the grazing fees that the BLM demanded.

If the state owns the land, why is the federal government in the form of the BLM involved at all?

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099866].message }}

seasoned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher

That's the issue...he has claimed he owns the land for a century, they claim they own it (hence the grazing permit requirement).

Certainly possible,but I heard them say they have the right to have their cows feed there. If they are right about them being there so long, just the EASEMENT shoud allow them that right. This does NOT hurt the governments ownership. The plants are going to grow anyway, and cows don't generally constitute a danger of any sort.

Who really does own the land? I'd like to get to the bottom of that before I take sides. Government may very well own it legally, then again it may not.

The government often doesn't let ANYONE own the land anyway. Usually you have like building and mineral rights, but there are some resources, like water, and I guess they have that here. An easement generally allows people to do almost anything temporarily. HECK, I have heard of property owners being sued and forced to even open gates and facilitate paths because of easements on their property.

But still, if his family has been doing this all this time... And WHY NOW?

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099869].message }}

sbucciarel Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

I've just decided that your land belongs to me. Contact me for rent payment instructions.

Except that it isn't the ranchers' land and never was. Be a different story if it were. I'd be royally pissed if I owned property and the government forced me to sell it to them under ED.
- [ 3 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9101738].message }}

Nighttrader

10 years ago

Ranchers have been running their cattle out their for generations; along with the desert tortoise. They coexist just fine. But now, according to the BLM, short for blame, there's a catastrophe a-brewin' and we've got to get those cows out of there before they bring down the whole ecosystem; or something like that. gawd.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9098861].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

I just remembered a few more cases just like this. A whole town in WY was just taken away from its residents by either the EPA or BLM, can't remember which -so they are in court over it.

Last year - maybe two now, BLM really roughed up and arrested two people for being on their own mining land here in OR. The BLM told them they had no right to be there. They called the people trespassers on their OWN land to which they had the title right there. That went to court and there's quite a bit of activism over the land grab out here in OR right now.

The Fed had no right to do what they've done........if they had a problem with it, they needed to take the people to court, not just invade on a property dispute, steal, sell, or slaughter the cattle, and now they are destroying the wells. The Sheriff has jurisdiction there and part of the hassle is that the Feds are forcing local law enforcement illegally to stand down. This is becoming way to widespread a problem for the media to cover it up. It needs to be dealt with. These are sovereign, amendment 10 states the federal gov has decided they can just take over at will.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9098911].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Actually - in the wild browsers do move on their own. They don't start destroying land until their movement is restricted. There's a few scientists right now that are working on plans for how to replenish the ecosystems by having browsers moved through areas instead of being contained.

Have you followed the BLM slaughter of wild horses in NV, then, too? You should see the holding pens and how they cram those animals in. It's disgusting.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9098974].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Actually - in the wild browsers do move on their own. They don't start destroying land until their movement is restricted. There's a few scientists right now that are working on plans for how to replenish the ecosystems by having browsers moved through areas instead of being contained.

Have you followed the BLM slaughter of wild horses in NV, then, too? You should see the holding pens and how they cram those animals in. It's disgusting.

Actually no, the cattle do NOT move on their own, until there's nothing left.

A while back, I posted a video from TED on this forum on how cattle can be "bunched" together to protect the environment, similating how they would naturally graze if they were concerned about preditors. But that isn't happening in this circumstance.

Just as disgusting as the pens are the "round ups", where the horses are litterally run to death by helicopters.

Let the horses and burros be. BLM land is my land too, not just the ranchers', and that's what I want done with my land. And it's the law.

Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9098991].message }}

NewParadigm

10 years ago

The government paid contractors a MILLION bucks to round up a few hundred cattle worth a thousand a piece. They claim he owes about a million in grazing fees.

This has little to do with a tortoise or back fees, much more to this that isn't being reported.

Thanks

Signature

In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9098982].message }}

bizgrower

10 years ago

Sure hope it does not go the way of Waco or Ruby Ridge.
It's something that should be resolved in courts.

Even if the rancher is wrong, it would not hurt anything
to leave things how they've been for a while longer until
the courts decide.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099431].message }}

seasoned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by bizgrower

Sure hope it does not go the way of Waco or Ruby Ridge.
It's something that should be resolved in courts.

NONE of this stuff can be resolved in courts. For the current one, the government should simply let them have the use of the land. They paid for it, have used it so long, and don't hurt it. The government would probably throw them in jail and if they were judged innocent their ranch would be sold off or wiped out.

With WACO, they apparently wanted to kill the people, and how could they go to courts, especially since the government wanted to jail them. They stayed there, and the government used explosive tear gas, etc... Apparently they were even caught on tape planning it. I was not crazy about what they CLAIMED about Koresh, but I have to wonder if ANY of it was true. After all, they had access to bibles and were in the US and apparently had SEVERAL men there. The CLAIMS sound a bit far fetched. and they lied about the gas being non flammable.

Ruby ridge was a JOKE! A FARSE! An ATF "AGENT" LIED about Randy's associations. They lied about Randy selling shotguns that were shorter than allowed. They tried to ambush randy's family and killed his dog, his son, and his wife. ALL he wanted was to have his own area where they could all live in peace. But ONE jerk wanted to get a gold star on his record, and the dream turned into a NIGHTMARE! I have seen horror stories, and dramas about gang attacks that were VERY similar.

HERE'S a thought! How about following the CONSTITUTION, and having a search, etc.... The way it is supposed to work is the cops get a REASONABLE SUSPICION! They then find some PROOF that gives REASONABLE DOUBT about the subject! They then present that to a JUDGE that determines if it IS reasonable. If the Judge agrees, they get a SEARCH WARRANT. They then confront the subject, present the warrant, and do a LIMITED SEARCH. If they happen across what they are looking for, or another thing they could have reasonably found within the limitations of the warrant, they then start a case. THEN they go to court.

If they had done that, waco might have been different. RUBY RIDGE certainly would have been.

For something like the current case, they should have informed the ranchers, and given the ranchers time to appeal in writing. After THAT, it should have gone to an appropriate court to get permission.

They should have had a pushback saying they paid for the access,

HEY, I have a client that paid $1 for a 99 year lease in Washington DC! A WHOLE city block! YEAH, you read right! Thy paid a bit more than 1 PENNY per year! The ONLY stipulation was to keep the buildings in their historic state, renew, and maintain them.

It is a method HUD uses to increase value in cities. The property was likely a shambles, and NOW it is up to code and in keeping with history.

Should the government go to them one day and say LOOK, this land is worth MILLIONS, PAY UP or GET OUT? NO! They made an agreement! They got value! The company paid a LOT to move there and renew the buildings.

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099498].message }}
garyv 10 years ago

Originally Posted by bizgrower

Sure hope it does not go the way of Waco or Ruby Ridge.
It's something that should be resolved in courts.

I don't think it will turn into a Waco or Ruby Ridge, only because we have Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube now. Had anyone at the Waco or Ruby Ridge incident used a smart-phone to broadcast what was going on, the Government wouldn't have gotten away with half of what it did.

I think cameras are what's going to help prevent - or else at least properly document - unlawful thuggish behavior.

However, if we suddenly notice a media blackout from this area, be prepared for anything. - We now know why Governments want to control these forms of social interaction.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100134].message }}
- Kay King 10 years ago
  
  The FAA link shows the no fly zone implemented today for that area...that's not rumor and appears designed to limit media access.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
  ***
  One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
  what it is instead of what you think it should be.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100160].message }}
  
  garyv 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Kay King
  
  The FAA link shows the no fly zone implemented today for that area...that's not rumor and appears designed to limit media access.
  
  Well - here we go then.
  
  I'm finding more links as well pointing to Reid and family being behind this. And it sounds like the director of the BLM is in Reid's back pocket. Just read what he has to say about his confirmation in December:
  
  U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid >> Reid Remarks At Neil Kornze Confirmation Hearing
  
  If that's not a conflict in interest then I don't know what is. - No one is stupid enough to believe that the conflict is being pushed this hard because of a turtle.
  
  [ 3 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100238].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Here we go:

ARIZONA is arriving to stand with the Bundy family -
SUBJECT OF BRIEFING: Arizona Legislature Sending an Official Delegation to the Bundy Ranch
FOR YOUR ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATION:
Approximately 11:00a.m. this date, the Arizona Legislature passed a Resolution of Support to the Bundy family and against the heavy-handed tactics of the U.S. Government, especially the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the seizure of grazing land used by the Bundy’s since the late 1880’s in Clark County, Nevada. The resolution is signed by members of the Arizona House of Representatives standing against any and all violations of State sovereignty and violations of the U.S. Constitution by the Federal Government. This resolution is to be hand carried this weekend and delivered to members of the Nevada State Legislature in support of their right to protect State and local sovereignty.
Furthermore, an official delegation from the State of Arizona comprised of Arizona State Senators and members of the Arizona House of Representatives will be traveling to stand with legislators from other western states, citizens of various states, Oath Keepers and Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association at the Bunker Ranch in Clark County, Nevada. The President of the Arizona State Senate, the Hon. Andy Biggs, and the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, the Hon. Andy Tobin, both have endorsed the Arizona Delegation of Legislators and their journey to the Bundy Ranch to stand in support of all who choose to protect individual and personal property rights, and the inalienable rights granted to WE THE PEOPLE by our Forefathers and authors of the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as State sovereignty granted by the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Arizona Delegation of Legislators further recognizes the Constitutional authority and rights of the Sheriff in preserving the sovereignty of his county and the people under his jurisdiction, and stands with those Sheriffs who stand to enforce the Constitution against all assaults; including political.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099726].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

And another one: This time Colorado.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxn8OoYJay4

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099757].message }}

ihappy

10 years ago

I don't claim to be an expert or anything, but in answer to that last question, "who really does own the land?" maybe native americans

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099853].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

For people that will OBLITERATE a persons life for one tiny little fish, these people act like they know so much about the status of animals, etc... Imean killing turtles and horses and cattle? And they are hurting peoples livelihoods which, ironically, hurts there ability to pay taxes and the GDP. In cases like this the damage to the economy could be in millions of dollars per event.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099873].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

I am so totally not a fan of Alex Jones, nor am I a conspiracy-theorist, but this appears to me to have a ring of truth to it:

» Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099876].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

I am so totally not a fan of Alex Jones, nor am I a conspiracy-theorist, but this appears to me to have a ring of truth to it:

» Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

The BLM has no right to do that! The National Park Service is FORBIDDEN to do that! But that DOES make sense! It ties with the solar panel stuff. An Easement would be a FURTHER impediment to a solar farm. And Harry Reid says such garbage ALL THE TIME. What he said was a FELONY! It was an OPEN THREAT to a US citizen and ,considering his position, it presents a clear and present danger! If anyone dies, I hope HE goes to jail, but he almost certainly WON'T!

Shocking Allegations Show Harry Reid, Chinese Company Behind Nevada Ranch Standoff

U.S. Senator Reid, son combine for China firm's desert plant | Reuters

I wonder.... Bundy is in NEVADA!!!!!! Given his employees, friends, other workers, could THIS possibly spell the end of his career? I hope people get a LONG memory about this!

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099956].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

I am one that hopes this doesn't escalate into violence.

I'm not sure what Kay meant by "this is how a fight for freedom starts".

From everything I've read in here, it seems like the courts have already ruled and its against the cattle guy.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100004].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I am one that hopes this doesn't escalate into violence.

I'm not sure what Kay meant by "this is how a fight for freedom starts".

From everything I've read in here, it seems like the courts have already ruled and its against the cattle guy.

Yes, the courts have ruled against this guy, who as Kurt says, has this feeling of entitlement. He wants free stuff.

One of the main reasons this story has "legs" is because the right wing media is stoking the flames:

Meanwhile, Glenn Beck's TheBlaze.com played up the fact that the federal agents confiscating Bundy's cattle were armed. Alex Jones' Infowars.com posited that the government was attempting to "enslave us in an [United Nations] Agenda 21 future where we have no property and no rights." During an April 9 edition of Jones' conspiracy theory radio show, Jones said of Bundy, "So your bottom line, like Paul Revere, you're making your stand, you're telling folks we're being overrun by an out of control tyranny."

National Review Online's Kevin Williamson called the presence of armed agents "inflammatory" and described the government's actions as a "siege." The conservative American Thinker accused Attorney Gen. Eric Holder of enforcing the law against Bundy for racial reasons.

But if anyone is waging a campaign of intimidation, it's Bundy and his family, who have repeatedly threatened violence, invoked revolutionary rhetoric, and issued public statements making known that they own firearms and appear willing to use them.

Right-Wing Media Are Throwing Gas On A Rancher's Violent Threats Against The Government | Blog | Media Matters for America

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100276].message }}

garyv 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

One of the main reasons this story has "legs" is because the right wing media is stoking the flames:

I don't seem to remember the federal government surrounding Giethner or Rangel's house when they didn't pay their bill.

No this story has "legs" for a much more legitimate reason than that. Good try as usual though Tim.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100315].message }}
- TimPhelan 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by garyv
  
  I don't seem to remember the federal government surrounding Giethner or Rangel's house when they didn't pay their bill.
  
  Hmm. I don't recall them threatening to shoot government employees either. Nice try also Gary.
  
  Thanks
  
  3 replies
  
  Signature
  Over 50 Dating
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100320].message }}
  
  ThomM 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TimPhelan
  
  Hmm. I don't recall them threatening to shoot government employees either. Nice try also Gary.
  
  If you watch any of the videos on this or listen to any interviews with Bundy, you'd know it's the Feds who are bringing the guns and it's the Feds who have tazed and roughed up the family.
  When the Bundy's heard otehrs where coming to support them they told the people not to come armed.
  Who's got the the guns and dogs here?
  
  Bundy Ranch Standoff - Fed Agents Assault...
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100350].message }}
  
  ThomM 10 years ago
  
  Here's another one Tim.
  
  Federal Thug Slams Cliven Bundy's Sister to the...
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100354].message }}
  
  Kay King 10 years ago
  
  I don't think we need to blow the story up here - I'm not putting myself on the rancher's side or on the govt side. Just worried it's an issue that could easily get out of control.
  
  I've learned some things - didn't realize how much land the feds owned in the west but it's much more than I thought.
  
  291 - Federal Lands in the US | Strange Maps | Big Think
  
  The ownership is from Louisiana and Gadsden (sp?) purchases and opening of the west to settlers.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
  ***
  One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
  what it is instead of what you think it should be.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100370].message }}
  
  TimPhelan 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Kay King
  
  I don't think we need to blow the story up here -
  
  No, "we" wouldn't want to do that.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  Over 50 Dating
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100547].message }}
  
  garyv 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TimPhelan
  
  Hmm. I don't recall them threatening to shoot government employees either. Nice try also Gary.
  
  Actually we don't know what might have happened because there was never even an attempt to confiscate property or belongings from them.
  
  I'm sorry, but the timing here is just way too suspect. This man has not been paying his bill for 20 years, and yet now, less than 4 months after Neil Kornze is appointed the head of the BLM it becomes a pertinent issue?
  
  This man's family has been using that land since before the BLM came into existence. But suddenly now there's an issue? And this property just happens to border the land Reid has been negotiating to build a rather large solar plant on? There's plenty of circumstantial evidence here, just not enough journalists anymore to connect the dots.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100515].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Yes, the courts have ruled against this guy, who as Kurt says, has this feeling of entitlement. He wants free stuff.

One of the main reasons this story has "legs" is because the right wing media is stoking the flames:

Right-Wing Media Are Throwing Gas On A Rancher's Violent Threats Against The Government | Blog | Media Matters for America

Pffft. Point to one source -- left-, right-, middle-, up- or down-wing -- that says this rancher wants something for free.

The main reason the story has legs is that so many people are tired of the federal government overstepping its constitutional boundaries.

Quit making this political, it isn't.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100494].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Pffft. Point to one source -- left-, right-, middle-, up- or down-wing -- that says this rancher wants something for free.

The main reason the story has legs is that so many people are tired of the federal government overstepping its constitutional boundaries.

Quit making this political, it isn't.

"Free" and "entitlement" can also be getting something for below fair market value. Would you consider getting $100 in food stamps for just $1 as getting something for "free"?

You'd think the "free market" people would be up in arms over this. Assuming there is no conflict with the Wild Horse and Burro Act, the grazing rights should leased at public auction and given to the highest bidder. I'd say every 5 years sounds fair. Let the "market" set the price, right?

This way Madeline Pickens can also bid on the land to do with as she pleases, and the American people and/or people of Nevada get full value for the land.

Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100531].message }}

TimPhelan 10 years ago

It's political now. It shouldn't have been but some have made it their current issue to rage against and yes, pouring gas on the fire.

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Quit making this political, it isn't.
- Thanks
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9100543].message }}

Doran Peck

10 years ago

So this begs the question...why didn't the Feds just go and arrest him and be done with it...like so many other "Tax evading law breakers" before him.

Seems like a beyond obvious solution.

Is it because they can't? And if they can't then why? What part of the story is missing?

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9101041].message }}

Patrician

10 years ago

BLM halts seizure of Nevada rancher's cattle, citing safety concerns - latimes.com

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Patricia Brucoli
Plug-In Profit Site Helpdesk

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9101050].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

I'm glad someone had the sense to stop this before it really got out of hand.
Maybe it's enough for those involved to sit down and negotiate a solution - maybe not.

I agree with Kurt it would be great to have "lease auctions" - but this particular land is already leased. Before the BLM - or any of us - existed this man's ancestors bought the lease and the terms allowed it to be passed down through inheritance. That was not a good idea looking back - but was at a time when people could claim land through homesteading, too. Totally different time.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9101226].message }}

seasoned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Totally different time.

Yeah, people weren't trying to sell us down the river! They actually tried to PAY their debts!

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9101281].message }}

kenmichaels

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

I'm glad someone had the sense to stop this before it really got out of hand.
Maybe it's enough for those involved to sit down and negotiate a solution - maybe not.

I agree with Kurt it would be great to have "lease auctions" - but this particular land is already leased. Before the BLM - or any of us - existed this man's ancestors bought the lease and the terms allowed it to be passed down through inheritance. That was not a good idea looking back - but was at a time when people could claim land through homesteading, too. Totally different time.

not that long ago ... as in my grandfathers time ... a handshake was as good
as a deed.

My Grandfather acquired a huge track of land. Little pieces at a time. some for money some for trade.
According to family lore MOST of it was sealed with a handshake. The deeds were an after thought.

After he died quite a bit of land was lost (returned?) due to no proveable and lost deeds.

It is amazing how different things are now.
As I was growing up a handshake was supposed to be as good as gold,
now it appears to be worth nothing ...

btw my family has suffered eminent domain twice.
Both times it made the property worthless ...
One parcel they were paid about .5cents on the dollar ....

Smoking hot deal that one was.

One was for power lines coming in from canada, the other was a for a highway.
yes.. i did say Canada ... as in Niagara falls ...
once upon a time we (NY) did... I don't know if we still do .... leased electricity
from them for upstate NY

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Selling Ain't for Sissies!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9101305].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by kenmichaels

It is amazing how different things are now.
As I was growing up a handshake was supposed to be as good as gold,
now it appears to be worth nothing ...

Not completely true. A handshake still has its place in our society as a way for two individuals to seal a personal pact that doesn't concern issues that would ultimately need to be settled in a court of law if there was a dispute, which is usually the normal eventuality, especially when you attempt to pass a handshake contract down through future generations.

Bemoaning the fact that in a complicated, modern world where it seems everything eventually winds up being litigated requires witnessed and notarized contracts seems kind of silly.

When you obtained your mortgage your banker may have shared a hardy handshake with you, but he still made you sign on the dotted line. I'll bet he didn't accept wampum as your 20% down, either.

Progress races ahead. Join us, won't you?

Cheers. - Frank

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9101786].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

Clearly he's wrong not to pay fees - but the BLM is running a power play and the timing of militaristic action after 20 years doesn't make sense. Neither do the changing BLM "reasons" - fees, horses, tortoises, improvements, herd size, back to fees.

Rancher's initial complaint was that BLM was supposed to use grazing fees to maintain and improve the land. He objected to the BLM using those fees to buy more land and then shut down ranches. Digging back a few years, seems that's what the BLM had started to do. He noticed it before it became public knowledge.

BLM Makes Push to Buy Western Land | The Land Report

You have a 68 yr old rancher who has raised 14 kids on this land. If he weren't a stubborn old coot he wouldn't have lasted this long ranching in the first place.

Interesting no one seems to know how many head of cattle is involved. One source says 900 - another says 139 - yet another says 400. Maybe they should hire someone who can count.

Left and right wing blogs are having a great time - but their interest is in their partisan view. They have no concern for the people involved on either side. The story is important as a clear message that government power can only go so far before people push back.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9101946].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

Cell phones have to be the bane for people trying to enforce anything these days. These photos are rich:

Standoff at Bundy Ranch Ends, With Photo of the Year So Far | Power Line

...and they show why you can't believe everything you read...OR see!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9101994].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Cell phones have to be the bane for people trying to enforce anything these days. These photos are rich:

Standoff at Bundy Ranch Ends, With Photo of the Year So Far | Power Line

...and they show why you can't believe everything you read...OR see!

Where was the "first amendment area" sign printed? China?

BTW:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102029].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

BTW: the right of the people peaceably to assemble, Steve

I guess that strutting around with your fully-loaded, semi-automatic assault rifle qualifies as 'assembling peaceably.' At least until some goober with a thimble-sized penis decides he wants to go down in history as a 'true patriot.' "Look, ma! I'm on CNN."

Just remember that whatever size weapon they bring, Uncle Sam will always have a bigger one. A much bigger one. We'll see how that works out. - Frank

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102086].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

I guess that strutting around with your fully-loaded, semi-automatic assault rifle qualifies as 'assembling peaceably.' At least until some goober with a thimble-sized penis decides he wants to go down in history as a 'true patriot.' "Look, ma! I'm on CNN."

Just remember that whatever size weapon they bring, Uncle Sam will always have a bigger one. A much bigger one. We'll see how that works out. - Frank

The government acted smartly. They nulled and voided those militia, avoided even the hint of another Ruby Ridge or worse, and don't believe for a moment this is over. They'll use their muscle in court and sooner or later, they'll win this argument.

[ 3 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102250].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Left and right wing blogs are having a great time - but their interest is in their partisan view. They have no concern for the people involved on either side. The story is important as a clear message that government power can only go so far before people push back.

He still has a debt of over $1M. I'd put a lien on his house and property for that debt and do some pushing back myself. With all the cries of welfare state and entitlements, why should this rancher feel he's entitled to raise his children and his cattle on government land? Leases and land rights are subject to change over time and this one did. Too bad if he doesn't like it. Maybe he should fork out the pocket change and buy his own land to operate his commercial ranching operation (of 1,000 head of cattle I read).

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102238].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

He still has a debt of over $1M. I'd put a lien on his house and property for that debt and do some pushing back myself. With all the cries of welfare state and entitlements, why should this rancher feel he's entitled to raise his children and his cattle on government land? Leases and land rights are subject to change over time and this one did. Too bad if he doesn't like it. Maybe he should fork out the pocket change and buy his own land to operate his commercial ranching operation (of 1,000 head of cattle I read).

If they bought a lease, then it IS HIS for this purpose. and they changed the rules and all as well. Leases and land rights are supposed to change ONLY after the old expires. To say otherwise means NOBODY can depend on ANYTHING! People generally rent(LEASE) an apartment for a period. That could be a year. They could even py in advance, but YOU are saying they may be asked to move the next month, or even kicked out because they didn't pay 50% more the next month as someone after the fact said they should.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102264].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

If they bought a lease, then it IS HIS for this purpose. and they changed the rules and all as well. Leases and land rights are supposed to change ONLY after the old expires. To say otherwise means NOBODY can depend on ANYTHING! People generally rent(LEASE) an apartment for a period. That could be a year. They could even py in advance, but YOU are saying they may be asked to move the next month, or even kicked out because they didn't pay 50% more the next month as someone after the fact said they should.

Steve

Well, he gave the government a perfect "in" for revoking that lease by not paying taxes that he had previously paid. Go ahead and rent an apartment and then not pay rent and see what having a lease will get you. Leases are always subject to change and most of them say that in very clear language, but they already have him on breaking the lease through non-payment.

[ 4 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102277].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

it's one of three AP photos via the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Interesting - the "fake" is "real"?

When I saw it labeled as a fake it made sense - hard to imagine any agency having such a sign made and no one along the way saying "wait - is that a good idea".

The numbers don't make sense. At the govt's claim of one million in fees owed, that would be $50k per year for grazing rights...the rancher claims he owes $300k. Apparently the "penalties" triple the amount owed.

This Year's Public Land Grazing Fee a Bargain, Continuing a 30-Year Trend | Commentary | ReWild | KCET

That seems to be a charge per head of livestock...about 1.35 per month per cow. Using those numbers the 300k seems more accurate.

If the goal is reduction of land use - why doesn't the BLM increase gazing fees across the board. Higher prices will discourage use of the land more than anything else. It would also kill the arguments that the BLM is using "selective" management to target some people or areas more than others.

This man owes money - no doubt about it. Paying the money won't solve his problem.

An interesting story and I learedn recent history about the West I didn't know:

http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/PVCC/m...sagebrush.html

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102349].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

The numbers don't make sense. At the govt's claim of one million in fees owed, that would be $50k per year for grazing rights...the rancher claims he owes $300k. Apparently the "penalties" triple the amount owed

The grazing fees aren't all he owes. They're also charging him trespassing fees since the court ordered him to remove his cattle and he didn't remove them.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102427].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, he gave the government a perfect "in" for revoking that lease by not paying taxes that he had previously paid. Go ahead and rent an apartment and then not pay rent and see what having a lease will get you. Leases are always subject to change and most of them say that in very clear language, but they already have him on breaking the lease through non-payment.

I was thinking the same thing. He must have broken the lease. Now if there was an actual agreement that said his family could pass on down through generations with no end why didn't he show that in the court cases? According to that case I showed earlier, his main argument was that the federal government didn't own the land. They didn't mention a never ending lease. If there was one, he probably broke it and his decendants are out of luck now.

With all the cries of welfare state and entitlements, why should this rancher feel he's entitled to raise his children and his cattle on government land?

I wonder why some here who always talk about those who feel entitled don't feel the same way about this guy? Is it because he is a good old boy who wears a cowboy hat? There sure seems to be a sense of entitlement here. By the way, to help expand the west in 1800s the government gave away land. This guys' family probably got one of these government "giveaways" back then. A bit ironic isn't it?

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102362].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I was thinking the same thing. He must have broken the lease. Now if there was an actual agreement that said his family could pass on down through generations with no end why didn't he show that in the court cases? According to that case I showed earlier, his main argument was that the federal government didn't own the land. They didn't mention a never ending lease. If there was one, he probably broke it and his decendants are out of luck now.

I wonder why some here who always talk about those who feel entitled don't feel the same way about this guy? Is it because he is a good old boy who wears a cowboy hat? There sure seems to be a sense of entitlement here.

When the BLM started collecting the fees the agreement was the BLM would use the fees for improving and maintaining the land. Instead they used the fees to buy up more land.
So who really broke the lease.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102380].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

When the BLM started collecting the fees the agreement was the BLM would use the fees for improving and maintaining the land. Instead they used the fees to buy up more land.
So who really broke the lease.

What agreement is that Thom? Why would use the fees to buy land the federal goverment already owns?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102424].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

What agreement is that Thom? Why would use the fees to buy land the federal goverment already owns?

What do you think the federal govt. owns every bit of land in this country?
They're buying up private property, not land they already own.
BLM Makes Push to Buy Western Land | The Land Report

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102443].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

They're buying up private property, not land they already own.
BLM Makes Push to Buy Western Land | The Land Report

That seems like a good law actually and it seems they also sell land when it makes sense. From what that article says it has sold almost 5 times as much as they have bought and they don't use ED. So I don't see what the problem would be.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102517].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

That seems like a good law actually and it seems they also sell land when it makes sense. From what that article says it has sold almost 5 times as much as they have bought and they don't use ED. So I don't see what the problem would be.

Exactly. What exactly is sinister about the gov buying land?

Under a federal law, the BLM, an arm of the Department of the Interior, has begun buying private properties that carve into federal wildlife refuges, national parks, national forests, and their ilk, making those lands difficult to access or manage. Though the law--the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act--was passed in 2000, federal agencies had not used it to make a land acquisition until this fall. In September, the BLM, working with the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, offered $18 million to snap up 19 parcels of private land in seven states. Overall, some 9,000 acres of land were acquired in New Mexico, Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Oregon, and California.

The last of those states provides a good example of the law's intent. The BLM and other agencies spent $850,000 to buy 321 acres near the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Preserve, a tongue-twisting federal wildlife refuge near Palm Springs. The preserve features both sand dunes and rocky hills and is home to the threatened fringe-toed lizard, which is found nowhere else in the world. The reason the BLM wanted the land was that it separated the preserve from the Joshua Tree National Park.

The equally tongue-twisting Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act can also work the other way around. In cases where federal lands are isolated by surrounding private properties, making them of little value to the government, the BLM can offer those parcels for sale. It can also sell off lands that have clear residential or commercial worth. The BLM has made $95 million from such sales so far.

Most of that money is required to go to further land acquisitions, like the purchases the BLM made in September. "These purchases promote conservation while helping ensure efficient and effective public lands management," said Lynn Scarlett, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, during the dedication ceremony for the Coachella Valley property.

And if you're wondering: No, this is not eminent domain. The act stipulates that government agencies only buy property from willing sellers.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102552].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

That seems like a good law actually and it seems they also sell land when it makes sense. From what that article says it has sold almost 5 times as much as they have bought and they don't use ED. So I don't see what the problem would be.

I didn't say them buying land was a problem.
What I said was Bundy was told the money he paid them would be used for land improvement and upkeep, but was used to buy more land instead.
Up to a couple of years ago Reid and his son where buying out the ranchers around him using the BLM. It was for a "solar ranch" that a Chinese company wanted to start. That fell apart around 2012.
Harry Reid connected to Bundy cattle ranch, according to purged documents - BizPac Review

U.S. Senator Reid, son combine for China firm's desert plant | Reuters

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102752].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

What I said was Bundy was told the money he paid them would be used for land improvement and upkeep, but was used to buy more land instead.

From what that article you linked to said they make more money from selling land than they spend on buying land so how can Bundy say they are taking the money from the fees and buying land? This guy says they aren't upkeeping the land but that's just his word and I don't really believe everything he says just like I don't believe everything the government says. However, I do know the BLM:

* has around 10,000 employees
* manages about 400 miles of US borderland between the US and Mexico/Canada
* manages 261 million acres of land
* has 57 million people visit land they manage every year
* has about 600 wilderness study areas
* has about 19000 miles of trails they manage
* has about 76,000 miles of roads they manage
* has 17 national conservation areas they manage
* has 15 national monument areas they manage
* has 38 wild scenic rivers they manage
* produce 50% of the total US geothermal power
* produce 13% of the total US natural gas production
* etc...

So, according to Bundy they aren't doing their job. If they aren't and all this stuff isn't getting done we just might have a real scoop and someone should call Alex Jones! :/

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9104915].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

From what that article you linked to said they make more money from selling land than they spend on buying land so how can Bundy say they are taking the money from the fees and buying land? This guy says they aren't upkeeping the land

I'm sure he peeps in the windows when the BLM is sorting through tons of cash to see exactly where it goes and what they do with it. I mean, otherwise, how would he know what they do with money?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9104921].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

From what that article you linked to said they make more money from selling land than they spend on buying land so how can Bundy say they are taking the money from the fees and buying land? This guy says they aren't upkeeping the land but that's just his word and I don't really believe everything he says just like I don't believe everything the government says. However, I do know the BLM:

* has around 10,000 employees
* manages about 400 miles of US borderland between the US and Mexico/Canada
* manages 261 million acres of land
* has 57 million people visit land they manage every year
* has about 600 wilderness study areas
* has about 19000 miles of trails they manage
* has about 76,000 miles of roads they manage
* has 17 national conservation areas they manage
* has 15 national monument areas they manage
* has 38 wild scenic rivers they manage
* produce 50% of the total US geothermal power
* produce 13% of the total US natural gas production
* etc...

So, according to Bundy they aren't doing their job. If they aren't and all this stuff isn't getting done we just might have a real scoop and someone should call Alex Jones! :/

You don't think someone living on the land wouldn't notice if the BLM is improving and upkeeping that land?
How much investigating do you have to do to find out how an agency is spending it's money?

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I'm sure he peeps in the windows when the BLM is sorting through tons of cash to see exactly where it goes and what they do with it. I mean, otherwise, how would he know what they do with money?

So if you where leasing land from the BLM and they told you that money would be used to improve and provide upkeep for that land, you wouldn't be able to tell if they where or not?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9105192].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

You don't think someone living on the land wouldn't notice if the BLM is improving and upkeeping that land?
How much investigating do you have to do to find out how an agency is spending it's money?

So if you where leasing land from the BLM and they told you that money would be used to improve and provide upkeep for that land, you wouldn't be able to tell if they where or not?

It is PUBLIC land. There are several hundred thousand acres involved. The rancher does not live on this land. I assume he actually has a house (a ranch) on property that he actually does own. Unless there is some specific contract, the BLM can do as they wish with the money they make in accordance with their government mandate. They are not beholden to a deadbeat cattle rancher. Of course you just willy nilly take some cattle rancher with a profit motive and enormous sense of entitlement's word for what is going on, but I certainly don't.

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9105237].message }}

Claude Whitacre

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

It is PUBLIC land. .

Say it 1,000 times. And watch to see if it matters.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9105253].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

It's more than one rancher and the question is whether the feds are overstepping boundaries in recent years.

FEDS SEIZE FAMILY'S RANCH-Property owners fight government 'land grab'!!! | Americas Freedom Fighters

Read more: LOFTI: Who actually "owns" America's land? A deeper look at the Bundy Ranch crisis | Ben Swann Truth In Media

In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government can only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislatures formally grant the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).

However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation. Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.

The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase land from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, or any other state. Unless, of course, the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.

I remember being very interested in the public land in the west years ago due to something I had read. Now, as then, the more I dig into it the more confusing it is. No question the land belongs to the public - but was it meant to belong to the feds or the states?

It seems that for years the state and fed govts had a balance in how the lands were used. Could it be that pressure from environmental groups and from those wanting to profit from energy production have tipped the scales?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9105314].message }}

sbucciarel Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

It's more than one rancher and the question is whether the feds are overstepping boundaries in recent years.

See what's wrong with the headline below is that it infers erroneously that the Feds have seized a family's ranch, which isn't the case. Again, it is public land, not the ranchers.

FEDS SEIZE FAMILY'S RANCH-Property owners fight government 'land grab'!!! | Americas Freedom Fighters
- [ 3 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9105326].message }}

ThomM 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Say it 1,000 times. And watch to see if it matters.

That his family has been leasing and paying for the use of for over 100 years. He has stated that he would continue to pay the state and county fees.
Even the governor of Nevada and the local Sheriff said the BLM was wrong.
But you can also say that 1,000 times and it won't matter to the people who always side with the feds over the people.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9105434].message }}

TimPhelan 10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

They are not beholden to a deadbeat cattle rancher.

The BLM administers 18,000 grazing permits and leases on 157 million acres across the country and this guy seems to be the only one who doesn't want to pay them because he thinks they are not the right people to pay. It's just ridiculous. What about the 17,999 others? Are they just stupid?
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9105323].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

It is PUBLIC land. There are several hundred thousand acres involved. The rancher does not live on this land. I assume he actually has a house (a ranch) on property that he actually does own. Unless there is some specific contract, the BLM can do as they wish with the money they make in accordance with their government mandate. They are not beholden to a deadbeat cattle rancher. Of course you just willy nilly take some cattle rancher with a profit motive and enormous sense of entitlement's word for what is going on, but I certainly don't.

Lot of assumptions there. So the man is a deadbeat with his only motivation being profit?
If he has an entitlement issue, what the hell do all the liberals who demand health care, food stamps and welfare have?
Yes I'm glad he stood up to the federal govt. for what he believed in and I'm glad he won (for now).

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9105427].message }}

BigFrank Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

If he has an entitlement issue, what the hell do all the liberals who demand health care, food stamps and welfare have?

Compassion. - Frank
- [ 3 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9105432].message }}
- ThomM 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by BigFrank
  
  Compassion. - Frank
  
  If they had compassion they would be more interested in getting people off those programs rather then more on them.
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9105437].message }}
  
  BigFrank Banned 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ThomM
  
  If they had compassion they would be more interested in getting people off those programs rather then more on them.
  
  Since we are forbidden to engage in purely political discourse I will have to let your misinformed statement fall by the wayside, where it belongs.
  
  There is life outside the bubble. Come on down.
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9105450].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Lot of assumptions there. So the man is a deadbeat with his only motivation being profit?
If he has an entitlement issue, what the hell do all the liberals who demand health care, food stamps and welfare have?
Yes I'm glad he stood up to the federal govt. for what he believed in and I'm glad he won (for now).

One can safely assume that anyone with 1K head of cattle has a profit motive, all the more so if he can get them fed for free.

I'm sure you know that you're not supposed to make this a partisan discussion, but since you have, I'm sure the conservatives would be more than happy to let the wealthy corporations and big cattle ranchers indulge themselves with entitlements but don't feel nearly as generous when it comes to hungry children.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9105457].message }}

BigFrank Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

but don't feel nearly as generous when it comes to hungry children.

The conservatives answer to the dilemma of hungry cattle and starving children?

Grind up the children and feed them to the cattle. Problem solved.

Yes - it was worth getting banned over. See you all in a few days. lol

Cheers. - Frank
- [ 4 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9105473].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I was thinking the same thing. He must have broken the lease. Now if there was an actual agreement that said his family could pass on down through generations with no end why didn't he show that in the court cases? According to that case I showed earlier, his main argument was that the federal government didn't own the land. They didn't mention a never ending lease. If there was one, he probably broke it and his decendants are out of luck now.

Well, one thing is certain. He doesn't now or never did own the land, no matter who he thinks owns the land ... it ain't him.

The court order that ordered him to remove his cattle came immediately after he stopped paying the fees, because he didn't think he should pay them anymore .... ha ha. I don't think it's a coincidence that his lease was revoked by a court right after non-payment of fees. He brought that situation on himself.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102455].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

He still has a debt of over $1M. I'd put a lien on his house and property for that debt and do some pushing back myself. With all the cries of welfare state and entitlements, why should this rancher feel he's entitled to raise his children and his cattle on government land? Leases and land rights are subject to change over time and this one did. Too bad if he doesn't like it. Maybe he should fork out the pocket change and buy his own land to operate his commercial ranching operation (of 1,000 head of cattle I read).

Maybe because this guy actually works and provides for others... that could be it.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102761].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Maybe because this guy actually works and provides for others... that could be it.

Well, you are very mistaken if you think that many recipients of federal aid do not work.

This guy ... he works alright. He's a big time cattle rancher. He sells beef. He provides for him, not others. Beef is his product for those who can still afford it.

Beef prices reach highest level since 1987

I personally removed beef from my menu except for very occasional indulgence a long ago due to the pricing of it, so he isn't working to provide for me and many others who dumped beef way back when the prices skyrocketed. That's the thing ... once you dump something and replace it with something else, you've broken a habit.

Why he should get any kind of entitlements is beyond me. He wants cattle, he can buy property and feed them himself in my book.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102778].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, you are very mistaken if you think that many recipients of federal aid do not work.

I'm sure some do work, but not all. I know many myself getting aid, and they don't work.

200 head of cattle - or however much he has - is way too much for just him to eat. He feeds a lot of working people with what he does. That's how a good economy works. You don't over tax the people providing food and work to the rest.

Our problem is we give welfare to the lazy, and then complain when someone providing a good or service keeps something for themselves. It's no wonder we're having such a hard time growing jobs.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102799].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

I'm sure some do work, but not all. I know many myself getting aid, and they don't work.

200 head of cattle - or however much he has - is way too much for just him to eat. He feeds a lot of working people with what he does. That's how a good economy works. You don't over tax the people providing food and work to the rest.

Our problem is we give welfare to the lazy, and then complain when someone providing a good or service keeps something for themselves. It's no wonder we're having such a hard time growing jobs.

Try 1,000 head of cattle and he doesn't feed working people. Working people who can afford beef, buy it from the suppliers. Don't act like he's giving people beef or feeding people. He's taking care of his own business, which is what he should do ... on his own land.

As for federal aid recipients, the largest population that receive benefits are children of the poor. The working poor, of which there are many. Walmart even goes so far as to suggest to their employees that they apply for food stamps because they work for so little and can't make ends meet on a Walmart salary. Unskilled labor works for very little and still works very hard to try to feed their families. So you know some who don't work and receive aid. So you cut off all the hungry children because of that, all the while, sending billions to poor countries other than our own? Not me.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102820].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Try 1,000 head of cattle and he doesn't feed working people. Working people who can afford beef, buy it from the suppliers. Don't act like he's giving people beef or feeding people.

That's what I said. He's feeding working people - meaning they pay for it. That's how most people still get their food in this country (still a majority I believe).

And like I said, those who provide goods and services - and jobs for themselves and others, should definitely have an easier time of it than anyone milking the system for benefits - which is a LOT of people no matter what you think. Yes there are some legitimate claims to those benefits - but there is an extremely large amount of people in this country getting benefits when they could live perfectly fine without them.

I'm just wondering -- When is the government going to swoop in and confiscate some cars for auction from GM? Being that they owe thousands times more than this rancher does.:rolleyes:

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102874].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

There are certainly atheists that are political. Look at Bill Maher. HE may call himself a Political Atheist. But it still has a different meaning. Atheist doesn't describe political, or vice versa, outside of the fact that it means he or she is likely antagonistic to judeo christian values, as BM obviously is.

Steve

Please, quit quoting me for the political atheist post. It is not mine. Pure Vida used it. Not me. I was simply replying to him.

Originally Posted by ThomM

A lot more then the rancher, that's for sure

His family has been ranching for over 100 years. I'm sure profit is one factor, as with every other business someone has. But you don't stay in that line of work if you don't also love what you do.

I agree. I'm sure he does love it. Who would bother with a bunch of farting, methane producing bovines if they didn't love it ... and profit?

Originally Posted by garyv

That's what I said. He's feeding working people - meaning they pay for it. That's how most people still get their food in this country (still a majority I believe).

And like I said, those who provide goods and services - and jobs for themselves and others, should definitely have an easier time of it than anyone milking the system for benefits - which is a LOT of people no matter what you think. Yes there are some legitimate claims to those benefits - but there is an extremely large amount of people in this country getting benefits when they could live perfectly fine without them.

I'm just wondering -- When is the government going to swoop in and confiscate some cars for auction from GM? Being that they owe thousands times more than this rancher does.:rolleyes:

Well, we'll have to disagree with the numbers of people getting aid in this country who don't need it, so moving on from that ....

When is the government going to swoop in and confiscate some cars for auction from GM? Being that they owe thousands times more than this rancher does

^^^^^^
I'm all for it.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102886].message }}

ThomM 10 years ago

I agree. I'm sure he does love it. Who would bother with a bunch of farting, methane producing bovines if they didn't love it ... and profit?

I agree. I've also known many farmers who just break even and some who don't even do that. Weather you're a farmer or rancher, there's no guarantee you'll make a comfortable living.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102905].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, you are very mistaken if you think that many recipients of federal aid do not work.

This guy ... he works alright. He's a big time cattle rancher. He sells beef. He provides for him, not others. Beef is his product for those who can still afford it.

Beef prices reach highest level since 1987

I personally removed beef from my menu except for very occasional indulgence a long ago due to the pricing of it, so he isn't working to provide for me and many others who dumped beef way back when the prices skyrocketed. That's the thing ... once you dump something and replace it with something else, you've broken a habit.

Why he should get any kind of entitlements is beyond me. He wants cattle, he can buy property and feed them himself in my book.

No but he still works for those of us who haven't dumped meat. He still works for the employees of the slaughter houses. He still works for the local butchers and supermarkets who sell his beef.
I'm not a fan of any entitlements, but I'd rather see a hard working rancher get one then the oil companies or G.E. or Monsanto.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102804].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

No but he still works for those of us who haven't dumped meat. He still works for the employees of the slaughter houses. He still works for the local butchers and supermarkets who sell his beef.
I'm not a fan of any entitlements, but I'd rather see a hard working rancher get one then the oil companies or G.E. or Monsanto.

I simply don't agree that his motives for producing beef are anything but a profit motive for him and his family. Saying he works for you ... well, if it didn't benefit him, I wonder how long he would be working for you?

As for GE or Monsanto or the oil companies... the notion of them getting entitlements is so absurd that I don't even want to do the research to see what they're getting

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102825].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I simply don't agree that his motives for producing beef are anything but a profit motive for him and his family. Saying he works for you ... well, if it didn't benefit him, I wonder how long he would be working for you?

As for GE or Monsanto or the oil companies... the notion of them getting entitlements is so absurd that I don't even want to do the research to see what they're getting

A lot more then the rancher, that's for sure

His family has been ranching for over 100 years. I'm sure profit is one factor, as with every other business someone has. But you don't stay in that line of work if you don't also love what you do.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102849].message }}

Midnight Oil

10 years ago

Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medial...dat/TN_444.pdf

The Gold Butte ACEC was selected from several potential regional mitigation candidate locations for the following reasons:

Niche modeling, completed by the National Park Service for the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, suggests, under future climate change, high-quality desert tortoise habitat will remain in the Gold Butte ACEC while most of the adjacent desert tortoise habitat in the national recreation area will decline and disappear.

The Gold Butte area is the area the cattle are grazing. The "future climate change" they're speaking of is the negative impact that the solar ranch will have on the tortoise in other areas.

For example:

The unavoidable impacts that may warrant regional mitigation for the Dry Lake SEZ (identified in previous steps in this strategy process) are as follows:

The loss of desert tortoise habitat and the potential loss of individual desert tortoises. The desert tortoise is listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

This project considered impacts that are likely to occur with the full build-out of the Dry Lake SEZ identified in the Final Solar PEIS. The project team found that while the potential for avoiding and/or mitigating many of the impacts onsite is good, the following impacts are likely to be unavoidable:

The loss of desert tortoise habitat and the potential loss of individual desert tortoises. The desert tortoise is listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102869].message }}

bizgrower

10 years ago

Whew. I'm glad they listened to me. lol

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9101359].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 10 years ago

I just have a hard time understanding how people can accept court decisions when they go their way and cry foul when they don't. You either believe in the American judicial system or you don't.

These are the same people that claim to believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights until you dig down and discover that they only believe in parts of both. They think the parts they don't believe in are crap and should be completely disregarded.

Neither of them, nor Court decisions are ala carte menus. You don't get to pick and choose which one you will abide by. You don't like a law, fight to change it within the constructs of our societal processes. If that doesn't work for you, enjoy your homestead in Guatemala. Flights leave daily.

Cheers. - Frank

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9101732].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

I just have a hard time understanding how people can accept court decisions when they go their way and cry foul when they don't. You either believe in the American judicial system or you don't.

These are the same people that claim to believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights until you dig down and discover that they only believe in parts of both. They think the parts they don't believe in are crap and should be completely disregarded.

Neither of them, nor Court decisions are ala carte menus. You don't get to pick and choose which one you will abide by. You don't like a law, fight to change it within the constructs of our societal processes. If that doesn't work for you, enjoy your homestead in Guatemala. Flights leave daily.

Cheers. - Frank

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head Frank! I notice many times those who talk the most about the Constitution don't seem to understand it very well at all and especially don't understand what you point out here. Can you imagine what kind of society we would live in if everyone behaved like this rancher and disregarded our judicial system? This guy will be seen as a hero to many I am sure and that is ridiculous. :/

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9101835].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head Frank! I notice many times those who talk the most about the Constitution don't seem to understand it very well at all and especially don't understand what you point out here. Can you imagine what kind of society we would live in if everyone behaved like this rancher and disregarded our judicial system? This guy will be seen as a hero to many I am sure and that is ridiculous. :/

A good example of that would be the "free speech zones" .

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102375].message }}

bizgrower

10 years ago

Again, I hope this remains non-violent and he can operate as he has
until it's resolved.

I suspect he's a savvy individual and has been watching the government
actions for a long time.

I also think that right or wrong, he fought the only way he figured he could.
Not paying fees would surely bring it to a head. Sure, it would have been nice
for him to be able to hire lawyers from day one, but he probably could not
afford it. He's probably land and livestock wealthy on paper. Even if he could
sell or mortgage to pay lawyers, he'd be out of business.

The Land Report post that Kay provided makes that law seem unjust.
Let's make a law that says we can buy land because we want it.
To me he's fighting things that he and others view as unjust or
unconstitutional the only way he can.

This is a complicated matter because of the land and agreements
that were in place so long ago. And because of the State's rights
issues and so on.

As garyv pointed out, video and internet probably helped this thing
take the tack it has taken. I also think that the government pulled back
to avoid political backlash - something any administration would do
if facing the identical scenario.

Dan

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102037].message }}

NewParadigm

10 years ago

I doubt this is 'over' for very long.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102041].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

Where was the "first amendment area" sign printed?

That was my point, Steve - there was no sign. It was computer generated.

There was an area roped off (30 x 30 feet according to those who were there) and people were told THAT was where they could gather to express their opinions. Very stupid move by someone at BLM who didn't think about how it would be perceived.

It was quickly dubbed the "free speech area"...and thus the "photo" - which isn't a real photo.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102088].message }}

bizgrower

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

That was my point, Steve - there was no sign. It was computer generated.

There was an area roped off (30 x 30 feet according to those who were there) and people were told THAT was where they could gather to express their opinions. Very stupid move by someone at BLM who didn't think about how it would be perceived.

It was quickly dubbed the "free speech area"...and thus the "photo" - which isn't a real photo.

Interesting that was not a real photo. Arizona law makers got upset over that issue.

Federal agency vows to continue legal action after ending Nevada ranch standoff | Fox News

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102098].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

I may have said that wrong. The "designated area" was real - and both people there and the BLM say there was a "free speech area".

The photo is not the issue - it's the SIGN that was added to the photo. These days, the truth isn't enough - it has to be enhanced.
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102186].message }}

Midnight Oil

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

That was my point, Steve - there was no sign. It was computer generated.

There was an area roped off (30 x 30 feet according to those who were there) and people were told THAT was where they could gather to express their opinions. Very stupid move by someone at BLM who didn't think about how it would be perceived.

It was quickly dubbed the "free speech area"...and thus the "photo" - which isn't a real photo.

Actually, it's one of three AP photos via the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

http://www.apimages.com/Search?query...orderBy=Newest

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102194].message }}

Pura Vida

10 years ago

Quite a few sad comments in this thread, I don't even know where to start.

I highly recommend you watch Chris Martenson's 'The Crash Course' , which lays out what is coming to America.

http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse

Then, Google Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Gerald Celente, and Peter Schiff. Learn about the Petrodollar system and why events are happening in the world.

I guess everyone wakes up in their own time.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102470].message }}

kenmichaels

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

Quite a few sad comments in this thread, I don't even know where to start.

I highly recommend you watch Chris Martenson's 'The Crash Course' , which lays out what is coming to America.

The Crash Course | Peak Prosperity

Then, Google Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Gerald Celente, and Peter Schiff. Learn about the Petrodollar system and why events are happening in the world.

I guess everyone wakes up in their own time.

I guess that is one way to get yourself noticed when your new to a forum. :rolleyes:

You jumped into a thread with some of the most opinionated people
in the forum ... and they don't always play so nicely together.

I hope you got some chops.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Selling Ain't for Sissies!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102486].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

Quite a few sad comments in this thread, I don't even know where to start.

I highly recommend you watch Chris Martenson's 'The Crash Course' , which lays out what is coming to America.

The Crash Course | Peak Prosperity

Then, Google Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Gerald Celente, and Peter Schiff. Learn about the Petrodollar system and why events are happening in the world.

I guess everyone wakes up in their own time.

Considering that all the resources you mentioned are from only one side of the fence, I hardly think that you've contributed anything that around half of us would read and believe. :p

Originally Posted by kenmichaels

I guess that is one way to get yourself noticed when your new to a forum. :rolleyes:

You jumped into a thread with some of the most opinionated people
in the forum ... and they don't always play so nicely together

I hope you got some chops.

Got more guts than I do. I didn't post in Off Topic for years.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102488].message }}

Pura Vida

10 years ago

Which side of the fence is that? I'm a political atheist.

I would say my views are much like fellow marketer Jeff Berwick...

Dollar Collapse, Expatriation, PT Theory, Prior Taxpayer Theory

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Considering that all the resources you mentioned are from only one side of the fence, I hardly think that you've contributed anything that around half of us would read and believe. :p

Got more guts than I do. I didn't post in Off Topic for years.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102568].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

Which side of the fence is that? I'm a political atheist.

I would say my views are much like fellow marketer Jeff Berwick...

Dollar Collapse, Expatriation, PT Theory, Prior Taxpayer Theory

We can't really discuss any "partisan" topics in the WF, so I'll decline to elaborate. I haven't got a clue who Jeff Berwick is, although this headline: 70 Militarized Federal Agencies & A Standoff In Nevada Later, US Tyranny At All-Time High along with the Fox News Business ad in the right sidebar, doesn't seem so politically atheistic to me. I didn't see a mention of the militarized citizens.

You might be a political atheist, but the sources you cited and suggested that we read are not.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102588].message }}

Pura Vida

10 years ago

Berwick founded Stockhouse.com, which was worth 250 million at one point. He's interviewed all the time on RT, CNBC, etc. He tells it like it is...

Jeff Berwick: Editor of DollarVigilante.com on Bitcoins, Gold and Silver | Greg Hunter

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

We can't really discuss any "partisan" topics in the WF, so I'll decline to elaborate. I haven't got a clue who Jeff Berwick is, although this headline: 70 Militarized Federal Agencies & A Standoff In Nevada Later, US Tyranny At All-Time High along with the Fox News Business ad in the right sidebar, doesn't seem so politically atheistic to me. I didn't see a mention of the militarized citizens.

You might be a political atheist, but the sources you cited and suggested that we read are not.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102673].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

Berwick founded Stockhouse.com, which was worth 250 million at one point. He's interviewed all the time on RT, CNBC, etc. He tells it like it is...

... or at the very least, like he thinks it is :p:p

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102697].message }}

Pura Vida

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

... or at the very least, like he thinks it is :p:p

Until a few minutes ago, you didn't even know who he was. I wonder what other things you don't know about? :p

How about you give us your thoughts on the recent 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that grants banks the right to CONFISCATE segregated customer accounts. If a bank goes under now, they can take your money. How do you feel about that?

People on 'my side of the fence' would say that is a violation of property rights.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102727].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

Until a few minutes ago, you didn't even know who he was. I wonder what other things you don't know about? :p

How about you give us your thoughts on the recent 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that grants banks the right to CONFISCATE segregated customer accounts. If a bank goes under now, they can take your money. How do you feel about that?

People on 'my side of the fence' would say that is a violation of property rights.

I still don't know who you are since you are using an anonymous account. Why would I bother to give you an opinion on an appeals decision in this thread. This thread and the issues involved in it go back 100 years or so and have some pretty complex issues. I've invested time in research to respond in this thread. I'm not interested in getting diverted by red herrings. I'm in this discussion because I find it interesting and am not going to hijack it with issues that do not relate to the topic we've been discussing.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102736].message }}

Pura Vida

10 years ago

Who I am isn't important. I'm just someone having a conversation with you.

The court's decision directly relates to property rights...so I'd say it's relevant to OP's topic. Aren't we discussing private property being stolen from people?

No shame in saying you are unaware of this decision, or that you have never heard of the Petrodollar system. These aren't topics that are discussed in the mainstream news...where unfortunately, most are getting their information from.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I still don't know who you are since you are using an anonymous account. Why would I bother to give you an opinion on an appeals decision in this thread. This thread and the issues involved in it go back 100 years or so and have some pretty complex issues. I've invested time in research to respond in this thread. I'm not interested in getting diverted by red herrings. I'm in this discussion because I find it interesting and am not going to hijack it with issues that do not relate to the topic we've been discussing.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102798].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

Who I am isn't important. I'm just someone having a conversation with you..

I'm aware of that. Doesn't matter to me who you are. I'm having a conversation also.

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

The court's decision directly relates to property rights...so I'd say it's relevant to OP's topic. Aren't we discussing private property being stolen from people?.

No. We are NOT discussing private property rights being stolen from people. We are discussing public property being used by a cattleman to feed his herd without paying his taxes on it, hence, the lease for him to do so being revoked in court. That's what I'm discussing.

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

No shame in saying you are unaware of this decision, or that you have never heard of the Petrodollar system. These aren't topics that are discussed in the mainstream news...where unfortunately, most are getting their information from.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm a capable researcher and when I get interested in something, I will research it. At the time, I'm not interested, and I'm particularly not interested in reading any more information from the links you provided than I already have. Should I decide to look into it, I'll do my own research.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102811].message }}

Pura Vida

10 years ago

If you ask the militia members why they are showing up, they will tell you it's property rights...such as this headline...

"Militia groups are rallying behind a rancher whose cattle are being seized by the federal government"

as well as (from Zero Hedge)...

"I have noted time and time again that the feds are becoming increasingly out of control and belligerent to American citizens. We know the stories (think Aaron Swartz) and we know the overall trend. However, the reason the Bundy Ranch confrontation is so interesting, is that for whatever reason this particular incident seems to be striking a chord of dissent. It is often times the most random, unforeseen and innocuous things that spark social/political movements. This standoff has it all.

Why The Standoff At The Bundy Ranch Is A Very Big Deal | Zero Hedge

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I'm aware of that. Doesn't matter to me who you are. I'm having a conversation also.

No. We are NOT discussing private property rights being stolen from people. We are discussing public property being used by a cattleman to feed his herd without paying his taxes on it, hence, the lease for him to do so being revoked in court. That's what I'm discussing.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm a capable researcher and when I get interested in something, I will research it. At the time, I'm not interested, and I'm particularly not interested in reading any more information from the links you provided than I already have. Should I decide to look into it, I'll do my own research.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102822].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

If you ask the militia members why they are showing up, they will tell you it's property rights...such as this headline...

"Militia groups are rallying behind a rancher whose cattle are being seized by the federal government"

I read all the articles. You don't actually think I care what the militia members say or believe?

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102827].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

We can't really discuss any "partisan" topics in the WF, so I'll decline to elaborate. I haven't got a clue who Jeff Berwick is, although this headline: 70 Militarized Federal Agencies & A Standoff In Nevada Later, US Tyranny At All-Time High along with the Fox News Business ad in the right sidebar, doesn't seem so politically atheistic to me. I didn't see a mention of the militarized citizens.

You might be a political atheist, but the sources you cited and suggested that we read are not.

Pollitical Atheist? I think you mean Politically IMPARTIAL.
Sometimes people will talk about things like a software application being database AGNOSTIC, and that means it doesn't know, OR CARE, what the database type is. But that i the closest I have heard.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102679].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Pollitical Atheist? I think you mean Politically IMPARTIAL.
Sometimes people will talk about things like a software application being database AGNOSTIC, and that means it doesn't know, OR CARE, what the database type is. But that i the closest I have heard.

Steve

Political atheist is the term pure vida used to describe himself. I saw the term used in one of his "suggested reading" sources, so I guess he stuck it in his swipe file and used it.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102692].message }}

Pura Vida

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Political atheist is the term pure vida used to describe himself. I saw the term used in one of his "suggested reading" sources, so I guess he stuck it in his swipe file and used it.

I can't take credit for that...it was coined by trends forecaster Gerald Celente.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102728].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Political atheist is the term pure vida used to describe himself. I saw the term used in one of his "suggested reading" sources, so I guess he stuck it in his swipe file and used it.

There are certainly atheists that are political. Look at Bill Maher. HE may call himself a Political Atheist. But it still has a different meaning. Atheist doesn't describe political, or vice versa, outside of the fact that it means he or she is likely antagonistic to judeo christian values, as BM obviously is.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102847].message }}

David Maschke

10 years ago

This guy isn't the shit kicker he's made out to be in the mainstream media.

His real argument concerns the 10th amendment of the constitution. Any power not specifically spelled out and granted to the federal government within the constitution is reserved to the states and people.

If the turtles must be saved, it's up to the states and people to initiate and enforce such a mandate, not the federal government.

This is Bundy's argument, not mine.

There is such a thing as a gray area in my opinion. The constitution does not specifically grant to the government the power to organize a nuclear regulatory commission. Do I think we need them? You bet your ass we need them. The last thing we need is some stupid CEO trying to save a few hundred bucks while constructing reactors.

As for the government owning land, I haven't done enough research yet to form an educated opinion on the matter.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102559].message }}

Pura Vida

10 years ago

The Federal government has detonated hundreds of nuclear bombs in Nevada, and now they are suddenly concerned about desert turtles?

Why The Standoff At The Bundy Ranch Is A Very Big Deal | Zero Hedge

Originally Posted by David Maschke

This guy isn't the shit kicker he's made out to be in the mainstream media.

His real argument concerns the 10th amendment of the constitution. Any power not specifically spelled out and granted to the federal government within the constitution is reserved to the states and people.

If the turtles must be saved, it's up to the states and people to initiate and enforce such a mandate, not the federal government.

This is Bundy's argument, not mine.

There is such a thing as a gray area in my opinion. The constitution does not specifically grant to the government the power to organize a nuclear regulatory commission. Do I think we need them? You bet your ass we need them. The last thing we need is some stupid CEO trying to save a few hundred bucks while constructing reactors.

As for the government owning land, I haven't done enough research yet to form an educated opinion on the matter.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102586].message }}

David Maschke

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

The Federal government has detonated hundreds of nuclear bombs in Nevada, and now they are suddenly concerned about desert turtles?

Why The Standoff At The Bundy Ranch Is A Very Big Deal | Zero Hedge

Of course they are concerned about desert turtles. They stay awake all night long worrying about them. Government employee's got together and took up a collection to buy the land.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102592].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

After reading some of this stuff - I can only conclude Las Vegas is definitely located in the right state

May be no connection - or may be the reason the BLM decided "now" was the time after so many years. Clark county is a big county with a lot going on.

Nevada Standoff: Harry Reid, Russian Soldiers, Chinese Businessmen and Euthanized Turtles |

U.S. Senator Reid, son combine for China firm's desert plant | Reuters
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102784].message }}

seasoned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by David Maschke

The constitution does not specifically grant to the government the power to organize a nuclear regulatory commission.

Actually, it DOES!!!!!! SERIOUSLY!

It says the federal government should "Provide for the common defense" AND to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers". With all the countries working on it, and a war that could kill so many more, the US had NO choice but to develop the atom bomb, and the regulatory commission was created to restrict enemies from developing the technology, and ensure those that use it do so safely.

The last thing we need is some stupid CEO trying to save a few hundred bucks while constructing reactors.

EXACTLY! Look at the "Fukushima Daiichi" plant. One would hope that th NRC would have told them FORGET IT! TOO CLOSE TO WATER! TOO CLOSE TO A BAY KNOWN TO BE AFFECTED BY TSUNAMIS! It should have been able to handle like a level 10 earthquake.

As for the government owning land, I haven't done enough research yet to form an educated opinion on the matter.

Yeah, the constitution DOESN'T allow for that! Public parks that aren't developed? YEP! Good for nature and the public's enjoyment. Things like a cell tower, etc? Reasonable given infrastructure needs, and helping so many people.

But to build a mall? To push people around?

BTW in the interest of full disclosure. I walked in some national parks. I took some pinecones. I took some acorns. I even made some acorn meal like some american indians once did. I also fished. I camped out, but I think there was usually a daily charge per person for THAT.

The area in dispute here couldn't have been TOO wild. One woman tried to run close to a recently encroached park, and a mountain lion mauled her. I was close to a few bears. i doubt the ranchers would have their cows in such a relatively dangerous area.

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102669].message }}

David Maschke

10 years ago

Let's all bow our heads in a moment of silence in remembrance of the days when government employee's would stand up to the local maggot infestations.

I can't believe the BLM backed down, for they are world renowned for their predator war-fighting skills.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102846].message }}

Pura Vida

10 years ago

LOL. I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Originally Posted by David Maschke

Let's all bow our heads in a moment of silence in remembrance of the days when government employee's would stand up to the local maggot infestations.

I can't believe the BLM backed down, for they are world renowned for their predator war-fighting skills.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102863].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Yeah, the small farmer and rancher have HARD times these days! Their costs have gone up, regulations have gone up, subsidies are being cut back, and the prices can be lower from the large guys that take more liberties.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9102926].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

This doesn't seem to be as isolated an incident as I thought.

The case of Wayne Hage in Nevada - now being carried on by his son as the elder Hage has died.

Judge ordered the govt (BLM) to pay the Hages 4.4 million and wrote a scathing 100 pg verdict about methods used by the govt against farms and ranches in western states.

That was in 2008 but then the appeals court predictably reversed the decision (ninth circuit?)

The complex legal case began in the late 1970s when the federal government launched a series of attacks on Hage, intermittently denying the Hage ranch permits for grazing and water access while objecting to improvements the family made to federal areas for which it had long-established grazing rights.

REED: Wayne Hage and the rout of property rights: An American tragedy « Watchdog.org

... pre-constitutional federal law (retained in force at the Convention of 1787) reserved all unsettled lands for the creation of new states, wherein the federal government would relinquish control over them. In other words had the will of America's founders been observed, there would be no federal lands and all unsettled lands would now be under the jurisdiction of the government of each state encompassing such lands.

I'd like to read the Hage book "Storm Over Rangelands: Private Rights in Federal Lands" - but it's listed for almost $70 on Amazon so not happening.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9103388].message }}

Pura Vida 10 years ago

We're going to see more and more SHOCKING court decisions. That's what happens when you have mass NSA spying and a growing police state. George Orwell warned everyone.

I hear many people saying "I'm not worried about the NSA spying....I'm not doing anything wrong". What they don't seem to understand is that judges, representatives, senators, corporate executives, presidential candidates, etc. are also being spied on. The NSA knows the websites these people go to...what they say in phone conversations...their emails, and more.

Once you have the dirt and know everything about somebody's life, that person can easily be blackmailed and intimidated.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9104333].message }}
- DJL 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Pura Vida
  
  ... George Orwell warned everyone.
  ...
  
  Orwell (in 1984) may have got the date wrong, but I believe he was right
  about most everything else except, I hope, the Anti-Sex League.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
  --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Elective Affinities (1809)
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9104504].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

This doesn't seem to be as isolated an incident as I thought.

The case of Wayne Hage in Nevada - now being carried on by his son as the elder Hage has died.

Judge ordered the govt (BLM) to pay the Hages 4.4 million and wrote a scathing 100 pg verdict about methods used by the govt against farms and ranches in western states.

That was in 2008 but then the appeals court predictably reversed the decision (ninth circuit?)

REED: Wayne Hage and the rout of property rights: An American tragedy « Watchdog.org

I'd like to read the Hage book "Storm Over Rangelands: Private Rights in Federal Lands" - but it's listed for almost $70 on Amazon so not happening.

It's not just the BLM either Kay.
Fish vs Farmer: Who Gets the Water? EPA Deliberately Destroying The Bread Basket | The Minority Report Blog

FDA proposal could impact brewers, farmers, environment

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9104710].message }}

This is how a fight for freedom will start...

Trending Topics

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Boat and Jet Ski Rentals...... Door Hangers Effective?

A Very Strange Internet Problem