Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Showdown on the range: Nevada rancher, feds face off over cattle grazing rights

World Class Peach





Posts: 5468
(5467 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/11/2014 at 07:30 AM
I'm surprised some of you haven't jumped on this story. this is gonna get ugly fast.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/us/nevada-rancher-rangers-cattle-showdown/ind ex.html?hpt=hp_t2

(CNN) -- A 20-year dispute between a Nevada rancher and federal rangers over illegal cattle grazing erupted into an Old West-style showdown on the open range this week, even prompting self-proclaimed members of militia groups from across the country to join the rancher in fighting what they say is U.S. "tyranny."

What began as a legal fight between longtime rancher Cliven Bundy and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has escalated as Bundy has refused to keep his cattle off the federal land, and the government has responded by beginning roundups of the cows.

A confrontation teetered on violence Wednesday when Bundy family members and dozens of supporters angrily confronted a group of rangers holding Tasers and barking dogs on leashes near Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

Federal officials say a police dog was kicked and officers were assaulted.

Bundy family members say they were thrown to the ground or jolted with a Taser.

In the end, the rangers got into their white SUVs and drove away, a YouTube video of the incident showed.

"Get out of our state!" the cheering protesters yelled at the rangers as they departed in several vehicles. "BLM go away! BLM go away!" they added, referring to the Bureau of Land Management.

The entire incident is now under investigation, Amy Lueders, the bureau's director in Nevada, said Thursday.

To some, the 67-year-old Bundy is a hero who hails from a long family of ranchers stretching back to the Wild West.

To environmentalists and the feds, however, he's an outlaw of sorts who owes U.S. taxpayers more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees.

The U.S. government is rounding up Bundy's cattle that it says have been grazing illegally on public lands in Clark County for more than 20 years, according to the land-management bureau and the National Park Service.

Between Saturday and Wednesday, contracted wranglers impounded a total of 352 cattle, federal officials said. Bundy says he owns 500 of the more than 900 cattle that federal officials are planning to confiscate for illegal grazing, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. Bundy told the newspaper that each head of his livestock is worth about $1,000.

Since the roundups began, protesters have been confined to two areas to publicly declare their grievances, but the peaceful protests in recent days "have crossed into illegal activity, including blocking vehicles associated with the (roundup), impeding cattle movement, and making direct and overt threats to government employees," the two federal agencies said in a statement.

On Wednesday, a bureau truck driven by a civilian employee assisting in the roundup "was struck by a protester on an ATV and the truck's exit from the area was blocked by a group of individuals who gathered around the vehicle," the agencies' statement said.

In the scuffle with protesters, a police dog was kicked, and officers protecting the civilian driver were threatened and assaulted, the two agencies' statement said. "After multiple requests and ample verbal warnings, law enforcement officers deployed Tasers on a protestor," the statement said.

The profanity-laced tussle was captured on a video posted on YouTube. A group that said it posted the video didn't respond to requests for comment.

In the video, protesters demanded to know why a backhoe and a dump truck were being used in the roundup -- and whether any livestock were killed. On Thursday, Lueders said the heavy equipment was used for field restoration.

"No BLM! No BLM!" the protesters chanted to rangers in the middle of a two-lane rural highway.

What sounds likes zapping Tasers can be heard in the video.

In the wake of the publicized protests, members of various militia groups have been traveling from Virginia, Texas, Montana, Idaho and Wisconsin and arriving at the protest site and Bundy's ranch to support the family, said Stephen L. Dean, 45, of Utah, a member of one such group called the Peoples United Mobile Armed Services.

"It's tyranny in government," Dean said when asked what brought him to Nevada.

And, he added, "stealing people's cattle."

One banner at the protest side stated: "Has the West been won? Or has the fight just begun!"

In removing Bundy's livestock from public lands, the park service and land bureau are carrying out two U.S. District Court orders from two different judges.

"Cattle have been grazing in trespass on public lands in Southern Nevada for more than two decades," the National Park Service said. "The BLM and NPS have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter administratively and judicially. Impoundment of cattle illegally grazing on public lands is an option of last resort."

Added the BLM: "Mr. Bundy has also failed to comply with multiple court orders to remove his cattle from the federal lands and to end the illegal trespass."

The bureau does allow grazing on federal lands -- it administers 18,000 grazing permits and leases on 157 million acres across the country, the agency said.

Bundy's dispute with the government began about 1993 when the bureau changed grazing rules for the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area to protect an endangered desert tortoise, KLAS reported.

Bundy refused to abide by the changes and stopped paying his grazing fees to the federal bureau, which he contends is infringing on state rights. His family has been ranching since the 1800s, before the U.S. Department of Interior was created and endangered species became a federal issue, he said in an interview with KLAS.

"My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water. I have been here longer. My rights are before the BLM even existed," Bundy told the station.

"With all these rangers and all this force that is out here, they are only after one man right now. They are after Cliven Bundy. Whether they want to incarcerate me or whether they want to shoot me in the back, they are after me. But that is not all that is at stake here. Your liberty and freedom is at stake," he continued.

And Bundy sees it as a state issue.

"The federal government has seized Nevada's sovereignty ... they have seized Nevada's laws and our public land. We have no access to our public land and that is only a little bit of it," he said.

This week, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval told the bureau of residents' criticism of the roundup.

What Sandoval said he found "most disturbing" was the BLM's use of a "First Amendment area" that confined protesters to a designated area.

Such an area "tramples upon Nevadans' fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution," Sandoval said. "No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans."
In response, federal officials are allowing the protesters to gather on public lands as long as they don't impede the roundup, said Lueders, the BLM's director in Nevada.

Bundy is digging in for a long fight.

"I've been fighting this for a number of years. It's not about my cows, I'll tell you that much," he said at a town meeting on Wednesday night. "It's about freedom and liberty and our Constitution ... and above all it's about our policing power. Who has policing power today?"

With the growing controversy, it was uncertain Thursday how long the cattle roundup will now last. At Wednesday night's meeting, residents gave Bundy a standing ovation when he publicly spoke.

"I love you people. And I love this land, and I love freedom and liberty," Bundy told the crowd. "I know without doubt that our Constitution didn't provide for anything like the federal government owning this land, and so when I pay my grazing fees -- if I owe any grazing fees -- I will sure pay it to the right landlord, and that will be to Clark County, Nevada."

 
Visit User's Homepage
Replies:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17361
(17416 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/11/2014 at 08:17 AM
Very interesting situation. I tend to come down on the side of the ranchers in this one, although I think legally it is an uphill battle for them. Can't wait to see how it turns out.

 

____________________
Ask not for whom the bell tolls

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5468
(5467 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/11/2014 at 08:37 AM
20 yr fight so far and now down to confiscating cattle, yea that's an uphill battle. I have to fall on the BLM's side, I mean should the laws be changed so that just ranchers have unlimited and unregulated use of the federal land? what about the timber industry or recreational (atv's) vehicle uses? should federal land just be the wild west as far as use goes?
 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/11/2014 at 08:41 AM
I am not a big fan of public grazing for reasons that it destroys public land but as long as he pays fees to someone then. he is ok but he can not graze them for nothing that is stealing from the public which is you and me now if he wants to says that Nevada owns the land i can see his point but I am thinking this is a un winable fight.

 

____________________
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the
Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." -Henry Ford

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/11/2014 at 10:06 AM
When the Federal gov't owns massive tracks of land, especially in the western states, why shouldn't they be used for something productive? It's not like this is anything new. Ranchers have been using this land for as long as they've been raising cattle out there.

What's new is the endless tightening of the regulatory screw by empire-building bureaucrats. They've already run most of his fellow ranchers off the land, and now we're down to the final battle.

Regulatory agencies operate most times without Congressional review. Nor do they ever account for losses of business, impact to the economy, or effect on jobs. In fact; they seem to enjoy exercising their power at the expense of those concerns. I'm not saying that there should be no regulation, but their discretionary powers should have limits that require them to submit their plans for Congressional oversight. I'd say that if 500 or more jobs are affected by some regulatory decision, the agency in question must acquire Congressional approval before taking action.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5468
(5467 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/11/2014 at 12:11 PM
someones gonna end up dead when this blows up.

quote:
In recent comments to a conspiracy theorist's radio show, Bundy said, "I haven't called no militia or anything like that, but hey it looks like that's where we're at." He added, "We got a strong army here, we have to fight." Previously Bundy told the Las Vegas Sun that "he keeps firearms at his ranch" and promised to "do whatever it takes" to defend his cattle being seized, adding, "I abide by almost zero federal laws."

Earlier this week, protesters and members of the Bundy family had a confrontation with law enforcement, where a stun gun was used to subdue Bundy's son, who had reportedly climbed on a dump truck when he assumed it contained cattle that had been killed during confiscation. Members of several militia groups have made their way to Bundy's ranch, reportedly "to protect the Bundys from tyranny."
quote:


 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4194
(4192 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/11/2014 at 01:32 PM
quote:
When the Federal gov't owns massive tracks of land, especially in the western states, why shouldn't they be used for something productive? It's not like this is anything new. Ranchers have been using this land for as long as they've been raising cattle out there.

What's new is the endless tightening of the regulatory screw by empire-building bureaucrats. They've already run most of his fellow ranchers off the land, and now we're down to the final battle.



The rancher can use the land for "something productive" as long as he pays his fees and abides by the regulations just like other farmers do. You seem to be someone against favoritism, so why should one rancher get a break in using public lands for free over another rancher?

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/11/2014 at 02:07 PM
quote:
quote:
When the Federal gov't owns massive tracks of land, especially in the western states, why shouldn't they be used for something productive? It's not like this is anything new. Ranchers have been using this land for as long as they've been raising cattle out there.

What's new is the endless tightening of the regulatory screw by empire-building bureaucrats. They've already run most of his fellow ranchers off the land, and now we're down to the final battle.
The rancher can use the land for "something productive" as long as he pays his fees and abides by the regulations just like other farmers do. You seem to be someone against favoritism, so why should one rancher get a break in using public lands for free over another rancher?
From what I've heard, something like 50 or more other ranchers that used to do the same thing in the same geography are no longer in business because of these rules, changes to rules, etc. Perhaps that says something about who's making the rules, setting the fees, etc.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4194
(4192 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/11/2014 at 03:02 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
When the Federal gov't owns massive tracks of land, especially in the western states, why shouldn't they be used for something productive? It's not like this is anything new. Ranchers have been using this land for as long as they've been raising cattle out there.

What's new is the endless tightening of the regulatory screw by empire-building bureaucrats. They've already run most of his fellow ranchers off the land, and now we're down to the final battle.
The rancher can use the land for "something productive" as long as he pays his fees and abides by the regulations just like other farmers do. You seem to be someone against favoritism, so why should one rancher get a break in using public lands for free over another rancher?
From what I've heard, something like 50 or more other ranchers that used to do the same thing in the same geography are no longer in business because of these rules, changes to rules, etc. Perhaps that says something about who's making the rules, setting the fees, etc.


Maybe, or maybe the previous fees and rules (if there was indeed a change in fees or rules, I don't know) didn't reflect the true cost to maintain the public lands and previously we, the taxpayers, were providing corporate welfare to these ranchers. I don't think either of us actually know the answer to this. But in my opinion, public lands does not mean anyone can use that land for any purpose they want as if it was their own private property. This applies across the board, whether ranchers grazing cattle, farmers growing crops, or occupy protesters setting up a tent city in a public park.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12503
(12493 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/11/2014 at 03:16 PM
quote:
Maybe, or maybe the previous fees and rules (if there was indeed a change in fees or rules, I don't know) didn't reflect the true cost to maintain the public lands and previously we, the taxpayers, were providing corporate welfare to these ranchers.

The article does state that the rules were changed at least in part because a native species of wildlife was in danger of extinction...it doesn't say why it was in danger of extinction, but it could have been a direct result of the ranchers' use of the land. Which raises a debate about who has more right to the land, the ranchers who have been there since the 1870s or an entire species of wildlife that has been there for many years before that. And of course I know it isn't that simple especially once you include the interests of any native peoples that may have been on the land prior to the ranchers as well, but the point is that I doubt this article frames the entire issue completely enough to have an well informed debate about it here.

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/11/2014 at 05:55 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
When the Federal gov't owns massive tracks of land, especially in the western states, why shouldn't they be used for something productive? It's not like this is anything new. Ranchers have been using this land for as long as they've been raising cattle out there.

What's new is the endless tightening of the regulatory screw by empire-building bureaucrats. They've already run most of his fellow ranchers off the land, and now we're down to the final battle.
The rancher can use the land for "something productive" as long as he pays his fees and abides by the regulations just like other farmers do. You seem to be someone against favoritism, so why should one rancher get a break in using public lands for free over another rancher?
From what I've heard, something like 50 or more other ranchers that used to do the same thing in the same geography are no longer in business because of these rules, changes to rules, etc. Perhaps that says something about who's making the rules, setting the fees, etc.
Maybe, or maybe the previous fees and rules (if there was indeed a change in fees or rules, I don't know) didn't reflect the true cost to maintain the public lands and previously we, the taxpayers, were providing corporate welfare to these ranchers. I don't think either of us actually know the answer to this. But in my opinion, public lands does not mean anyone can use that land for any purpose they want as if it was their own private property. This applies across the board, whether ranchers grazing cattle, farmers growing crops, or occupy protesters setting up a tent city in a public park.
I don't have any problem with the ideas of usage fees being applied, as long as there's an equitable process that eliminates favoritism and political cronyism. And you and I both know that's highly doubtful.

If someone came in proposing solar or wind collection on these lands, they'd be given everything: funding, tax abatements, construction easements, immunity from environmental regulations - sky's the limit. But a guy grazing a few thousand head of cattle in a place where its be going on for more than a century - no - we can't have that!

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4194
(4192 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/11/2014 at 07:15 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
When the Federal gov't owns massive tracks of land, especially in the western states, why shouldn't they be used for something productive? It's not like this is anything new. Ranchers have been using this land for as long as they've been raising cattle out there.

What's new is the endless tightening of the regulatory screw by empire-building bureaucrats. They've already run most of his fellow ranchers off the land, and now we're down to the final battle.
The rancher can use the land for "something productive" as long as he pays his fees and abides by the regulations just like other farmers do. You seem to be someone against favoritism, so why should one rancher get a break in using public lands for free over another rancher?
From what I've heard, something like 50 or more other ranchers that used to do the same thing in the same geography are no longer in business because of these rules, changes to rules, etc. Perhaps that says something about who's making the rules, setting the fees, etc.
Maybe, or maybe the previous fees and rules (if there was indeed a change in fees or rules, I don't know) didn't reflect the true cost to maintain the public lands and previously we, the taxpayers, were providing corporate welfare to these ranchers. I don't think either of us actually know the answer to this. But in my opinion, public lands does not mean anyone can use that land for any purpose they want as if it was their own private property. This applies across the board, whether ranchers grazing cattle, farmers growing crops, or occupy protesters setting up a tent city in a public park.
I don't have any problem with the ideas of usage fees being applied, as long as there's an equitable process that eliminates favoritism and political cronyism. And you and I both know that's highly doubtful.

If someone came in proposing solar or wind collection on these lands, they'd be given everything: funding, tax abatements, construction easements, immunity from environmental regulations - sky's the limit. But a guy grazing a few thousand head of cattle in a place where its be going on for more than a century - no - we can't have that!


Fair enough, but it does seem that 18,000 other ranchers figured out how obtain a permit to legally allow their cattle to graze on public lands. Not that I've reviewed the permit application or anything, but I have a strong feeling that every application has a standard set of rules that the user must followed to allow cattle to graze on public lands, and that each application isn't different with a different set of rules for each individual rancher.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5468
(5467 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/11/2014 at 07:35 PM
lots of militia groups headed that way or so says the media. they could be hyping this for ratings. i hope that some americans don't chose this to be their alamo. Red Dawn was only a movie.
 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5468
(5467 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/12/2014 at 08:53 AM
Fox News' Sean Hannity is increasingly -- and dangerously -- taking on the role of PR agent for a Nevada rancher defying the federal government with violent threats.

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has quickly become a darling of right-wing media over his decades-long refusal to pay federal government fees required to allow his cattle to exploit public lands. In July 2013, a federal court ordered the rancher to remove his cattle from the public property or they would be confiscated and sold to pay off the $1 million in fees and trespassing fines Bundy owes. When that confiscation began this month, the rancher took his battle to conservative media, who held him up as a folk hero battling big government invasion into private property rights and states' rights.

Bundy's defiance has been marked by violent and revolutionary rhetoric toward the federal government, hints of a bloody confrontation cheered on by the right-wing fringes who have repeatedly compared the situation to notorious and deadly standoffs like Ruby Ridge and Waco. For example, when Bundy appeared on his radio program, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones posited that if Bundy's supporters confronted federal agents at the auction for Bundy's confiscated cattle, which the rancher encouraged, it "could be how the shot heard round the world happens in this case." Jones warned that "this could turn into 1776 very quickly."

But such dangerous hyperbole isn't confined to the fringes. Increasingly, Sean Hannity's promotion and defense of the rancher's actions and threats is starting to resemble that of far-right extremists.

Hannity interviewed Bundy on his Fox program on April 9, sympathizing with the rancher's claims and arguing that allowing Bundy's cattle to graze on public lands "keeps the price of meat down for every American consumer."

His rhetoric had noticeably escalated two days later when he invited Bundy onto his radio program The Sean Hannity Show. Hannity argued that federal agents have "drawn the wrong line in the sand here," praising Bundy because he "like[s] anybody that's willing to fight."

He went on, "I'm just afraid of what this government is capable of doing. I mean we saw what happened in Waco," to which Bundy responded, "We have to have faith that America will stand. You know we would never won any of these wars from the Revolutionary War on up if we didn't have faith and courage and fighting for something."

Throughout the program, Hannity repeatedly pushed violent predictions, saying, "This can spiral out of control. You get one wrong person out there, this can spiral out of control really fast," and "If it keeps going, this is going to end very, very badly." He even demanded, "The government needs to stand down" because "this is only a symptom of how one person, standing up to the government, I'm telling you, [it is] my opinion that this crisis could come to a head, and lives could be lost."

Hannity promised to bring Bundy back onto his Fox program that night, and discussed the possibility of traveling to Nevada to visit the ranch.

At this point, Hannity is perhaps Bundy's most prominent supporter, and his role as PR agent for a man openly defying federal law and hinting at violent retaliation against federal agents appears to only be increasing. Words are one thing, but Hannity's public hyperbole is particularly worrisome given the fact that armed militia group members are reportedly heading into Nevada to take on the government with Bundy, who's placed armed guards at his gates.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/12/2014 at 12:48 PM
Looks like a little break in the action...

quote:
Nevada Cattle Rancher Wins 'Range War' With Feds

A Nevada cattle rancher appears to have won his week-long battle with the federal government over a controversial cattle roundup that had led to the arrest of several protesters.

Cliven Bundy went head to head with the Bureau of Land Management over the removal of hundreds of his cattle from federal land, where the government said they were grazing illegally.

Bundy claims his herd of roughly 900 cattle have grazed on the land along the riverbed near Bunkerville, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, since 1870 and threatened a "range war" against the BLM on the Bundy Ranch website after one of his sons was arrested while protesting the removal of the cattle.

"I have no contract with the United States government," Bundy said. "I was paying grazing fees for management and that's what BLM was supposed to be, land managers and they were managing my ranch out of business, so I refused to pay."

The federal government had countered that Bundy "owes the American people in excess of $1 million " in unpaid grazing fees and "refuses to abide by the law of land, despite many opportunities over the last 20 years to do so."

However, today the BLM said it would not enforce a court order to remove the cattle and was pulling out of the area.

"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," BLM Director Neil Kornze said.

"We ask that all parties in the area remain peaceful and law-abiding as the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service work to end the operation in an orderly manner," he said.

The roundup began April 5, following lengthy court proceedings dating back to 1993, federal officials said. Federal officers began impounding the first lot of cows last weekend, and Bundy responded by inviting supporters onto his land to protest the action.

"It's not about cows, it's about freedom," Utah resident Yonna Winget told ABC News affiliate KTNV in Las Vegas, Nevada.

"People are getting tired of the federal government having unlimited power," Bundy's wife, Carol Bundy told ABC News.

By Sunday, April 6, one of Bundy's sons, Dave Bundy, was taken into custody for refusing to disperse and resisting arrest, while hundreds of other protesters, some venturing from interstate, gathered along the road few miles from Bundy's property in solidarity. Dave Bundy was later released.

A spokesman for the Bundy encampment told ABC News roughly 300 protesters had assembled for the protest, while a BLM representative estimated there were around 100 people.

"We want a peaceful protest, but we also want our voices heard," said Cliven Bundy's sister, Chrisie Marshall Bundy.

But clashes between demonstrators and authorities took a violent turn on Wednesday, with cell phone video showing some being tasered at the site, including Bundy's son, Ammon Bundy. Two other protesters were detained, cited and later released on Thursday, according to the BLM.

As the movement grew by the day, and demonstrators rallied together, bonding by campfires at night, local protest leaders warned people not to wear camouflage and keep their weapons inside their vehicles.

Both sides said the issue is one of fairness, with the federal government maintaining that thousands of other cattle ranchers are abiding by the law by paying their annual grazing fees, while Bundy's family and supporters say the government's actions are threatening ranchers' freedoms.

"It's about the freedom of America," said another of Bundy's sisters, Margaret Houston. "We have to stand up and fight."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-cattle-rancher-wins-range-war-federal-gover nment/story?id=23302610


 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5468
(5467 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/12/2014 at 02:11 PM
interesting but there is no way the gov't lets this go. hmmm all it takes is we all just stop paying, this is not good.
 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4194
(4192 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/12/2014 at 03:33 PM
quote:
interesting but there is no way the gov't lets this go. hmmm all it takes is we all just stop paying, this is not good.


I tend to agree with you. If they give this guy a free pass, than why would the other 18,000 ranchers abiding by the law feel the need to kEscaladeseep doing so and be at a fiscal disadvantage. Once everything calms down a bit, the feds will be back and act fast before the situation can become dangerous. This might indeed become another Waco, which spurs another right-wing terrorist, but I just can't see allowing one person to continually break the law just because he has a bunch of militia types threatening the government.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/12/2014 at 04:25 PM
quote:
quote:
interesting but there is no way the gov't lets this go. hmmm all it takes is we all just stop paying, this is not good.
I tend to agree with you. If they give this guy a free pass, than why would the other 18,000 ranchers abiding by the law feel the need to kEscaladeseep doing so and be at a fiscal disadvantage. Once everything calms down a bit, the feds will be back and act fast before the situation can become dangerous. This might indeed become another Waco, which spurs another right-wing terrorist, but I just can't see allowing one person to continually break the law just because he has a bunch of militia types threatening the government.
That's what I thought too.

But his point is an interesting one; BLM is paid to manage the land for the ranchers. If all they have done is to manage his fellow ranchers (and now him) out of business, what obligation should there be to pay?

When you consider how much of Nevada the Feds claim, you'd think they would expect to be held to some business standard for being paid to manage the land...


 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19873
(19933 all sites)
Registered: 2/9/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/12/2014 at 08:18 PM


I looked at this map and knowing the way the Feds have always prioritized, almost immediately my thoughts went, Bing! Gold. Think mid 1840's...where was all of the Gold and Silver being mined?... It may be "Ranch land" now.......

 

____________________

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8271
(8271 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/12/2014 at 08:27 PM
What does land management consist of? Friday of last week I went out to the Spotsylvania Courthouse Battlefield. There were about 35 Federal firefighters conducting a controlled burn over a relatively small area of that National Park. American tax dollars pay for that land management.

Does the rancher make money off his cattle after using Federal land? Of course he does. Why should I subsidize that guy to the tune of a million bucks?

His using land owned by the public is simply more corporate welfare.

I say pay up Sport or go to prison for theft.

It is interesting that beef prices have just hit their highest level since 1987. He isn't buying grain to feed those cattle. He is feeding them off land he doesn't own yet passing on higher costs to the consumer.

[Edited on 4/13/2014 by BillyBlastoff]

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4194
(4192 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/12/2014 at 10:31 PM
quote:


I looked at this map and knowing the way the Feds have always prioritized, almost immediately my thoughts went, Bing! Gold. Think mid 1840's...where was all of the Gold and Silver being mined?... It may be "Ranch land" now.......


So, what's your point? The US purchased the land from Mexico (or stole it if you read Mexican textbooks) and opened it to homesteading, which ended in the 1970s. That land does not belong to him, so why should be feel he has a right to use it for free. If it belonged to John Smith instead of Uncle Sam, would he feel that he has the right to graze his cattle on it for free? Funny how all the conservatives are all for property rights unless the property owner happens to be the federal government, but apparently the government isn't allowed to control their own land.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/12/2014 at 10:38 PM
There's one possible flaw in your hypothesis: corporate welfare is typically given to those the gov't wants to help stay in business. At least that's the stated goal.

In this case BLM wants money that wasn't previously charged for grazing on this land, and at the same time is actively working to put those ranchers out of business. They have succeeded to a large extent, and this is the last guy standing.

So have we gotten to the point where we'll be forced by gov't to pay them to cause us economic harm? Obviously the case could be made that much of what gov't does ends up achieving that goal, but those would be more roundabout or secondary effects. This is direct. Pay us as we make it harder for you to conduct the business your family has been operating here for generations. Or else. That's a far more twisted situation.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/12/2014 at 10:41 PM
quote:
Funny how all the conservatives are all for property rights unless the property owner happens to be the federal government, but apparently the government isn't allowed to control their own land.
I thought we were the gov't.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3204
(3207 all sites)
Registered: 1/7/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/12/2014 at 10:52 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/u-s-stops-fight-nevada-rancher-gra zing-land-article-1.1754457
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19873
(19933 all sites)
Registered: 2/9/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/12/2014 at 11:03 PM
quote:
quote:


I looked at this map and knowing the way the Feds have always prioritized, almost immediately my thoughts went, Bing! Gold. Think mid 1840's...where was all of the Gold and Silver being mined?... It may be "Ranch land" now.......


So, what's your point?


My point is that when the Federal Gov't wants something, it acquires it. Mr. Bundy claims he owns that land. Who do you believe?.....Just askin'

 

____________________

 
<<  1    2    3    4  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com