Where is the Clark County sheriff on the Bundy ranch thing

[davidmcbeth]

Looks like WE are the cattle that the gov't wants to kill

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...enanmen-Square-fight-disputed-ranch-land.html

What the heck is this? Its enough reason to fight by itself

But I am willing to compromise ... a link below shows my map of 1st amend. zones (in yellow)

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/usa_map.htm

 

[OC for ME]

You mean he's not willing to take a position against federal agents following lawful orders to remove cattle from someone who refused to pay a fee of a dollar per head per month..... And who defied three different levels of federal courts and caused all kinds of environmental damage while practically stealing public resources? Who would've guessed?

Around 1993 the BLM reduced the number of cattle that could graze to 150 head max, due to the tortoise canard. He, Mr. Bundy, refused to reduce his heard, and his grazing permit was canceled in 1994 and the allotment (the land) was closed to all grazing. Mr. Bundy then attempted to pay his grazing fee to the county, they refused to accept. It seems the BLM has been working to oust all ranchers from that land at the behest of environuts for 20 years now. Mr. Bundy is the lone holdout.

It is reported the land has been improved, as is evident from Mr. Bundy increasing the size of his heard over the years. It is reported that Mr. Bundy used his money, that his fees should have been used for, to maintain and improve the land.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/apr/06/rancher-land-dispute-bully-not-hero/

Mr. Bundy has been attending to his side of the bargain, made long ago with the feds. A bargain that the feds reneged on 20years ago based on junk science.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I've personally walked the land in question. It is not overgrazed or suffering from what you describe.

I am not an expert in anything else related to this issue, however, and have reserved judgment of Mr. Bundy.

As of now it's not because he's the only one grazing there. One person or a small group of people are not enough to do damage, however if the message gets out that one person can get away with it, then it will encourage many more people to do the same thing. Then it becomes an issue.

bundy has zero ownership of the land. If it were his ranch he owned then i would be right with everyone else on this one. But it's not. He's demanding to use public land as he sees fit. This would be like if a logger went into the olympic national forest and cut down trees without a permit then refused to pay the fines. If the law is not enforced it will encourage further law breaking. And I can see no constitutional interest in Uncle Sam subsidizing your cattle feed. I actually think it's unfair to ranchers who own their ranches or pay to fill their feedlots

 

[Felid`Maximus]

As of now it's not because he's the only one grazing there. One person or a small group of people are not enough to do damage, however if the message gets out that one person can get away with it, then it will encourage many more people to do the same thing. Then it becomes an issue.

bundy has zero ownership of the land. If it were his ranch he owned then i would be right with everyone else on this one. But it's not. He's demanding to use public land as he sees fit. This would be like if a logger went into the olympic national forest and cut down trees without a permit then refused to pay the fines. If the law is not enforced it will encourage further law breaking. And I can see no constitutional interest in Uncle Sam subsidizing your cattle feed. I actually think it's unfair to ranchers who own their ranches or pay to fill their feedlots

Maybe I'm mistaken here. Admittedly I know very little about what is going on other than just reading a couple of news articles, but from what I read over the last two days from news articles (which cannot always be trusted for reliable information), it makes it sound like his family had been there since before the federal government claimed control and suddenly imposed fees which, in order for Bundy to pay, would require him also to sign that he agrees to scale his operation back to almost nothing as well.

 

[The Big Guy]

As of now it's not because he's the only one grazing there. One person or a small group of people are not enough to do damage, however if the message gets out that one person can get away with it, then it will encourage many more people to do the same thing. Then it becomes an issue.

bundy has zero ownership of the land. If it were his ranch he owned then i would be right with everyone else on this one. But it's not. He's demanding to use public land as he sees fit. This would be like if a logger went into the olympic national forest and cut down trees without a permit then refused to pay the fines. If the law is not enforced it will encourage further law breaking. And I can see no constitutional interest in Uncle Sam subsidizing your cattle feed. I actually think it's unfair to ranchers who own their ranches or pay to fill their feedlots

Why do you insist that the land belongs to the Feds? By what right do they tell us what we should do with OUR public lands here in NV and for that matter all of the western states? You need to get this concept, the Federal Government is a creature of the states, not the other way around.

MOLON LABE. We're ready.

TBG

 

[MAC702]

As of now it's not because he's the only one grazing there. One person or a small group of people are not enough to do damage, however if the message gets out that one person can get away with it, then it will encourage many more people to do the same thing. Then it becomes an issue.

bundy has zero ownership of the land....

That means you are guessing.

And that is very misleading. Bundy is an American. Those are public lands. To say he has zero ownership is not correct.

Now, I'm still not defending his actions, because I still don't yet understand the entire set of FACTS.

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

As of now it's not because he's the only one grazing there. One person or a small group of people are not enough to do damage, however if the message gets out that one person can get away with it, then it will encourage many more people to do the same thing. Then it becomes an issue.

bundy has zero ownership of the land. If it were his ranch he owned then i would be right with everyone else on this one. But it's not. He's demanding to use public land as he sees fit. This would be like if a logger went into the olympic national forest and cut down trees without a permit then refused to pay the fines. If the law is not enforced it will encourage further law breaking. And I can see no constitutional interest in Uncle Sam subsidizing your cattle feed. I actually think it's unfair to ranchers who own their ranches or pay to fill their feedlots

Since the federal gvt. has made a wasteland with nuclear bombs and such out of much of this state, where is your stance on that? Is it OK because they slaughtered the Indians, waged war with Mexico, and paid some money? Lets see, you support the people who take money (through threats and violence, as we saw last week) to blow up the landscape, but a peaceful cattle rancher.... Now that's a bad Dude!

 

[onus]

Clearly you're not familiar with the effects of over grazing, the plants the cattle graze provide ground cover, their roots hold the ground together, overgrazing loosens the ground and can cause dust bowls

If that's true then why does the federal government allow grazing on millions and millions of acres nearby with the exact same terrain ?

I hope you are aware that BLM land accounts for the vast majority of land being grazed by cattle in the western part of America.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Since the federal gvt. has made a wasteland with nuclear bombs and such out of much of this state, where is your stance on that? Is it OK because they slaughtered the Indians, waged war with Mexico, and paid some money? Lets see, you support the people who take money (through threats and violence, as we saw last week) to blow up the landscape, but a peaceful cattle rancher.... Now that's a bad Dude!

I don't think hardly anyone in any current office of government had anything to do with the things you list. Except making Bundy pay for his graze...... I hardly think the people of Nevada would benefit from living under mexican rule either...... So maybe the war with Mexico wasn't so bad after all for mr bundy. Not paying your protection to cartels that have no rule of law restricting their actions would've resulted in him being found headless in a mass grace 15 years ago...

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That means you are guessing.

And that is very misleading. Bundy is an American. Those are public lands. To say he has zero ownership is not correct.

Now, I'm still not defending his actions, because I still don't yet understand the entire set of FACTS.

He has zero ownership interest, he can't exclude people from the BLM lands. He can't fence them off.......

He can use them pursuant to rules that the public as a whole through public process has enacted for use of said lands.... let's change the scenario, if a logger went into the national forest and insisted on a constitutional right to chop down a hundred acres of forest with no permission and then did it, there would be nothing like this thread about it, the logger would be arrested and forced to pay fines, and no one would are about that...

There is a case to be made that the Feds violated the rights of the protesters, and used excessive force on his son with the tazed, I absolutely do not think the BLM handled it correctly with setting up first amendment zones and arresting peaceful protestors. But I also completely support getting this welfare queen to pay up and take his cattle if he doesn't....

 

[Primus]

He has zero ownership interest, he can't exclude people from the BLM lands. He can't fence them off.......

He can use them pursuant to rules that the public as a whole through public process has enacted for use of said lands.... let's change the scenario, if a logger went into the national forest and insisted on a constitutional right to chop down a hundred acres of forest with no permission and then did it, there would be nothing like this thread about it, the logger would be arrested and forced to pay fines, and no one would are about that...

There is a case to be made that the Feds violated the rights of the protesters, and used excessive force on his son with the tazed, I absolutely do not think the BLM handled it correctly with setting up first amendment zones and arresting peaceful protestors. But I also completely support getting this welfare queen to pay up and take his cattle if he doesn't....

Nailed it. I agree with you completely on this.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

EMN is missing the fact that the government arbitrarily changed the agreement. I don't remember any vote we the people had to change the agreement of use of land.

Also I bet ranchers would buy the land if it was for sale, which it should be.

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

Lets say for argument sake that you are right, Mr. Bundy was in violation of a bureaucratic regulation. It is most likely a civil penalty, not criminal. Absent a crime... no Probable cause. I heard nothing of a warrant, Judges Order to pick bundy up, or authorize the BLM assault. ( "UOF" snipers on the hills trained on the Bundy house in a civil matter?) While I saw a court order to remove cows from "BLM" land, it appears that they did much more. I saw video's of backhoes breaking water lines that Bundy had installed to improve the land. BLM Confronted People on a State owned Hwy. (Jurisdiction?) Where did the BLM get the Authority to Point Tazer's at unarmed People? In an effort to uphold a disputed regulation, these jokers violated the constitution over and over, Fencing in 1st amendment areas, and the like. Feel free to side with the violence of the BLM if you like, I despise their lack of respect for the Oath they took. They initiated aggression, and now their supporters are whining because they couldn't handle what they usually dish out.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

EMN is missing the fact that the government arbitrarily changed the agreement. I don't remember any vote we the people had to change the agreement of use of land.

Also I bet ranchers would buy the land if it was for sale, which it should be.

Sweet, we can just go back to enclosures and an oligopoly owning all the land and we peasants can hike, hunt, fish, only if people not accountable to us say so....... Great idea, I wonder why that hasn't been tried in the past.....

And my guess is that the cost of owning land will be far more expensive then paying the grazing fees.

Besides, if we held a public referendum tommorow about federal ownership of public lands and the people voted to keep public ownership you'd just say that it's tyranny of the majority.... Weren't you the one insisting the constitution creates no right to suffrage anyway?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Nope. That's me.

My bad

 

[marshaul]

Sweet, we can just go back to enclosures and an oligopoly owning all the land and we peasants can hike, hunt, fish, only if people not accountable to us say so.......

I'm sorry... how exactly is that any different from Federal ownership today?

Because that's what I thought you were describing at first.

 

[Felid`Maximus]

And my guess is that the cost of owning land will be far more expensive then paying the grazing fees.

That doesn't mean people wouldn't want to own it anyway because a lot of money can be had from grazing. Low grazing fees are no good to a person with 400 cows if the stipulation for accepting the grazing fees is that you have to get rid of 390 of your cows first.

Sweet, we can just go back to enclosures and an oligopoly owning all the land

So according to that chart, Washington is only 30% federally owned. Would you support the feds taking away 70% of the land in Washington State not presently owned by the Feds from whoever has it to give it to bureaucrats in D.C. to manage instead of your own state? Then Washington could have 80% of the land owned by the Feds like Nevada.

What is it about D.C. politicians 3000 miles away that make them so much more competent to administer land than politicians from your own state?

 

[28kfps]

Interesting, the BLM paid an outfit nine hundred thousand dollars to roundup the cattle. It was their plan to take them to Utah to sale them at auction. The Cattlemen association had said the do not and will not purchased cattle from BLM as they often do not have clear ownership and proof of branding and consider such cattle as stolen.
Three days prior to BLM rounding up the cattle the Governor of Utah sent BLM a letter telling them not to bring the cattle to Utah to sale as was planed by the outfit that round them up. Another reason for letting them go, as they had no place to take them. Even with the letter and not having a place to take the cattle to market as planed BLM went on with the roundup.
The law they use to roundup the cattle had nothing to do with over grazing. The BLM had decided after 20 years of desert tortoise endanger law and not offering any evidence now was the time to remove the cattle due to the affect they were having on the desert tortoise.
Agree with or disagree with BLM's clam to ownership of our country’s land one thing is for sure they really hosed up this deal wasting our tax dollars.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Sweet, we can just go back to enclosures and an oligopoly owning all the land and we peasants can hike, hunt, fish, only if people not accountable to us say so....... Great idea, I wonder why that hasn't been tried in the past.....

And my guess is that the cost of owning land will be far more expensive then paying the grazing fees.

Besides, if we held a public referendum tommorow about federal ownership of public lands and the people voted to keep public ownership you'd just say that it's tyranny of the majority.... Weren't you the one insisting the constitution creates no right to suffrage anyway?

I'm sorry... how exactly is that any different from Federal ownership today?

Because that's what I thought you were describing at first.

He said go back to.....Ok I'll wait for the cite when private citizens owned all the land and the list of atrocities.

Also we never suggested all the land, some how the eastern states survived with the majority of the land belonging to the state and the people......

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That doesn't mean people wouldn't want to own it anyway because a lot of money can be had from grazing. Low grazing fees are no good to a person with 400 cows if the stipulation for accepting the grazing fees is that you have to get rid of 390 of your cows first.


So according to that chart, Washington is only 30% federally owned. Would you support the feds taking away 70% of the land in Washington State not presently owned by the Feds from whoever has it to give it to bureaucrats in D.C. to manage instead of your own state? Then Washington could have 80% of the land owned by the Feds like Nevada.

What is it about D.C. politicians 3000 miles away that make them so much more competent to administer land than politicians from your own state?

If 80% of Washington was totally empty and the state had no money to maintain public lands then yes I would support that. "DC politicians" are the people elected in districts comprising the country as a whole. When the BLM was formed decades ago nevada had already declared that 80% to be publically owned and at the time nevada did not have the funding or resources for effective management! and to the best of my knowledge Nevadas congressional delegation has made no real attempt to bring the lands back under state ownership....