Nevada BLM actions background

Pages

682 posts / 0 new
Last post
aba's picture
aba
Offline
Joined: 12/16/01

gst, I watched the Bundy's on Hannity now several times. I don't care how you look at it they didn't pay rent.  If you needed pasture and were willing and able to pay and would not be allowed to expand because some dead beat had not paid rent for 20 years do you think that would be fair? As far as the water goes you and both know that would be wrong to not allow water for livestock. I watched last night and the elder Bundy can't keep his lies straight, his boys flanking him with their side arms. Then the coward who bragged about putting the women up front so they would get shot first if something happened. Dingy Harry is right this isn't over, you picked the wrong person to defend

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

aba Said:
gst, I watched the Bundy's on Hannity now several times. I don't care how you look at it they didn't pay rent.  Aba, I' don't think any one is claiming they did "pay rent" to the BLM. He apparently tried to pay it to the county instead. If the county has no authority over these lands, how can the County Commissioners under Reids sons direction as head of the Commission vote unanimously to sell these lands to the Chinese? No one wants to answer that question. If you needed pasture and were willing and able to pay and would not be allowed to expand because some dead beat had not paid rent for 20 years do you think that would be fair? aba you do realize that 52 other ranchers that DID pay their rent were "not allowed to expand" but rather were forced to cut their herds to levels they could no longer stay in business with by the BLM right? Do you think THAT is "fair"? As far as the water goes you and both know that would be wrong to not allow water for livestock. So then why would the BLM destroy water lines and systems if this land is to be used for grazing whether it is by Bundy or some other rancher if he is removed ? No one wants to answer that one simple yet important question.  I watched last night and the elder Bundy can't keep his lies straight, his boys flanking him with their side arms. Exactly what "lies" are you referring to? AZ is an open carry state. Should they not have had "side arms"?  Then the coward who bragged about putting the women up front so they would get shot first if something happened. Stupid and despicable.  Dingy Harry is right this isn't over, you picked the wrong person to defend  So you are "defending" "dingy Harry" by default here? What do you suppose would have continued to happen if Mr Bundy HAD just done what the govt told him and cut his herds down to where he could not stay in business? Nothing. Who would have learned of these connections to Sen. Reid? There still will likely be nothing done as too many people still wish to believe this is about grazing fess and tortoises.

aba have you contacted our state Senators urging them to investigate Sen. Reids connections and actions regarding these BLM lands in Nevada? Or are you content to lay the blame on one lone rancher.

Aba, if a Federal agency was created to HELP you as a rancher better manage the lands you use to graze your cattle with the fees you were paying them as the contract states, and then suddenly over nite this Federal agency switched from helping you manage your cattle and the lands better with the fees you pay them to using these fees to cut your herd numbers to a point you could no longer stay in business what would you do?

What would you do as you watched 52 of your neighbors and fellow ranchers being driven out of business and off the lands by the Federal agency that was meant to help you and you were the last rancher remaining?

What would you do as you watched that Federal agency sell these lands to developers thru corrupt politicians as your friends and neighbors were forced off these lands they had used legally for multiple generations?

What of the four reasons I listed are not good reasons to support some light being shed on this situation?

What would you allow the Federal govt to "take" before you realize it is too late and they have grown to the point they can "take" anything they wish?

""A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

I find it interesting that some people are quick to lay the blame on the rancher claiming "he broke the law" by refusing to pay the Federal entity the fees overlooking the govts actions themselves.

These people seem to be willing to over look the fact the very Founders that gave us this system of laws ALSO "broke laws" they rationally believed to be unjust to be able to create what they did.

Our nations history is full of people and groups that have done this very same thing.

These same Founders also forewarned of the responsibilities of the citizens of this nation to stand up to govt tyranny , gave us the tools to do so and forewarned about the complacency of allowing a govt to grow to the point ours now has.

Some of these same people that fight against infringements on their 2nd amendment rights  will malign those that exercised their 2nd amendment rights for the very reason they were granted by the Founders.

The Founders knew that protecting what they created would not be easy nor popular once things were allowed to get to a point of no return.

They were truly visionary not only in what they created, but to fore warn of the challenges they knew would come to be that would destroy it.

Not seeing this is about far more than paying grazing fees and a desert tortoise is simply not seeing the forest for the trees.

Sen Reid and his cronies are counting on it.

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

gst Said:
ron, I will ask you the same question I asked a couple of others that no one has answered.

"now here is a question for meelosh and out of range. Mr Bundy was trying to pay his fees to Clark County as he believed they had the preemptive rights thru the water to these lands.

If Clark County does not have some sort of authority, how can the County commissioners vote unanimously under Sen Reads son as the head of the county commissioners to sell these BLM lands to a Chinese investment group? "

For the record, I initially misunderstood that there were 2 families involved, my mistake. As far as I am concerned, Hege family has a legit argument and I hope they get paid the money owed to them granted by the courts.

As far as your question goes, it really doesn't matter what Bundy "believes" if it is in fact the BLM that has the rights. As far as Clark Co. goes, there probably is something shady there and the county probably overstepped what they are allowed to do. That happens all the time. 

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
""A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."

Remember that next time your heads in the mailbox looking for your government check.  There is indeed a lesson in the quote you like.  Pay heed. 

Bundy's are not smart and are lying to the American people.   Try renting land from your neighbor and not paying him for 20 years.  If your neighbor Bill owns land and you agree to rent it why after harvest would you try to pay Tom.   Bundy's are stupid and liars.

The government did screw up.  Under Obama the anti government sentiment has never been so strong.  This makes it an opportunist time for the Sagebrush Rebellion to make a land grab.  If you enjoy any outdoor activity it's time to be vigilant because there are groups like the Sagebrush Rebellion who want what we jointly own through our government.  What's crazy is they actually think they are more entitled than other American citizens. 

I sure would like to see the document that says Bureau of Land Management was formed to help ranchers.  It was formed to manage federal lands including setting grazing capacity and collecting grazing fees.  The Bureau of Land Management serves all American citizens, not a handful who see them as their personal servants.

People are correct when they separate the issues.  Dirty Harry is dirty Harry, and crazy Bundy is crazy Bundy.  Also, the other ranch dispute has nothing to do with Bundy trying to cheat the government (American people) out of a million plus.  The guy is stealing from us, not the big bad government.  Now we have to pay for the administering of those lands.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

 

I find it interesting that some people are quick to lay the blame on the rancher claiming "he broke the law" by refusing to pay the Federal entity the fees overlooking the govts actions themselves.

Now is that just not precious!!! You where quick to blame Cook for breaking the ND law that he is challenging!!

See gst it is this kind of Bull crap that makes almost anyone that really listens to you know you are a hypocrite!

So one more time,in his own words he has changed what he is protesting!!!!
Fine it still does not change situation or fact that he is wrong based on his own admissions.

Do not disagree that Harry Reid is a scum bag and that there is very likely payoffs or bribes taking place, However bundy and his position go back to 93 on this!

So good bad or ugly as I have said the wrongs do not make a right period!!!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

doublebarrelsaloon's picture
doublebarrelsaloon
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/22/09

 There is a part of me that sees this case as dueling deadbeats in a way. It seems as though the BLM has recognized this guy's grazing rights to this land from 1934 to 1993 when the turtle issue came up. Apparently after 100+ years of cattle just then it raised hell with the turtle, even though the solar farms they keep permitting apparently do more damage. Look at it this way if your family owns land and another family started living there, made improvements etc, and was allowed to remain, they do have rights to that land. It actually happens quite often. Many people own houses in places like PA, OH, IN, IL just to draw a recent example, have left their property and left to look for greener pastures so to speak. Others have moved in without the owners knowledge and established utilities and made living improvements. The folks who basically stole the house have actually been able to keep it in many cases where the court has upheld their right as being an occupier saying that the real owners by not kicking the person out right away recognize the persons right to the property. It's insane in my opinion but it has been happening. Therefore in this case why can the government get away with being absent when Joe and Jane six-pack American cannot? Maybe I'm missing something but seems hypocritical to me, hypocritical in a way that has lead to other landowners losing their land.

I dont go around guessing cup sizes either I just know a nice rack when I see one.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

The government has not been absent, and up to 1993 they were paid for the grazing fees.  This is more like people having a house they do not live in so they rent it out.  After a few years the people stop paying their rent.  I would find a reason to throw them out. 
With government intruding into our lives more each year there is a part of me that wants to be on any side against them.  However, I can't support a thief in his efforts for free grazing.  I guess there are many other places to oppose the new oppression we see from our government other than supporting a dishonest rancher.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:

""A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."

Remember that next time your heads in the mailbox looking for your government check.  There is indeed a lesson in the quote you like.  Pay heed. 

plaisnman, I will ask you the same question I asked ron, why do you always have to make these discussions personal?

plaisnman, you know I have spoke out against the Federal Ag programs many times.

outofrange's picture
outofrange
Offline
Joined: 12/17/01

  gst, do you know whats funny? 

The land that the "county commission approved sale for" wasn't the Bundy ranch. It was 20 miles away. It is the type of loose association of rumors that shreds the Bundy defense. His defense is that he feels that Nevada is sovereign... guess what, it's not. 

So if the land wasn't being deeded to the chinaman, and this isn't the site of the solar panels, and Rory Reid isn't in the bushes behind house, what is this about? It's about a court order to remove the cattle owned by some deadbeat rancher from MY PUBLIC LANDS!

This isn't about tortoises (anymore), not about ENN, not about Hage, not about Hawaii, not about a ditch, not about the Reid family, not about states rights, not about oil, not about fence height, not about criminally low public rangeland lease rates of $1.35/aum, not about alleged attempted payments to Clark County, or any of the other red herrings and straw arguments you've tried twist to satisfy your tyrannical narrative. 

doublebarrelsaloon's picture
doublebarrelsaloon
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/22/09

I do agree with that however with grazing fees is there also an agreement on a management/maintenance level that the BLM, when taking fees also agrees to and maybe wasn't upholding their side? I'm not asking to argue I'm not an expert here and would like to learn more. 

Plainsman Said:
The government has not been absent, and up to 1993 they were paid for the grazing fees.  This is more like people having a house they do not live in so they rent it out.  After a few years the people stop paying their rent.  I would find a reason to throw them out. 
With government intruding into our lives more each year there is a part of me that wants to be on any side against them.  However, I can't support a thief in his efforts for free grazing.  I guess there are many other places to oppose the new oppression we see from our government other than supporting a dishonest rancher.

I dont go around guessing cup sizes either I just know a nice rack when I see one.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

plainsamn, two questions.

1. Why was the BLM destroying water systems on these lands if they intend to allow grazing?

2. How can the Clark County Commissioners under Sen. Reids leadership vote to sell these BLM lands to the Chinese if the county has no authority over them?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:

 

I find it interesting that some people are quick to lay the blame on the rancher claiming "he broke the law" by refusing to pay the Federal entity the fees overlooking the govts actions themselves.

Now is that just not precious!!! You where quick to blame Cook for breaking the ND law that he is challenging!!

See gst it is this kind of Bull crap that makes almost anyone that really listens to you know you are a hypocrite!

So one more time,in his own words he has changed what he is protesting!!!!
Fine it still does not change situation or fact that he is wrong based on his own admissions.

Do not disagree that Harry Reid is a scum bag and that there is very likely payoffs or bribes taking place, However bundy and his position go back to 93 on this!

So good bad or ugly as I have said the wrongs do not make a right period!!!

ron indeed I was but I do not believe I have said he had no right to do so if he felt it was unjust??? Have I?

Just as I was "quick to blame Cook, you were just as "quick"  to defend Cooks" actions against a standing law were you not?

So then why does Cook have that right in your eyes, but apparently this rancher does not?

So please ron, before you continue to make what was a nice discussion personal, take a look in the mirror.

I do not believe I have said Mr. Bundy has not broken the law/regulation regarding who these fees should be paid to. I have merely stated what Mr. Bundy believes as to why he did.

So ron answer this, what authority allows the Clark County Commissioners to vote unanimously under Sen Reids sons leadership to sell these BLM lands to the Chinese?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

outofrange Said:
  gst, do you know whats funny? 

The land that the "county commission approved sale for" wasn't the Bundy ranch. It was 20 miles away. It is the type of loose association of rumors that shreds the Bundy defense. His defense is that he feels that Nevada is sovereign... guess what, it's not. 

So if the land wasn't being deeded to the chinaman, and this isn't the site of the solar panels, and Rory Reid isn't in the bushes behind house, what is this about? It's about a court order to remove the cattle owned by some deadbeat rancher from MY PUBLIC LANDS!

This isn't about tortoises (anymore), not about ENN, not about Hage, not about Hawaii, not about a ditch, not about the Reid family, not about states rights, not about oil, not about fence height, not about criminally low public rangeland lease rates of $1.35/aum, not about alleged attempted payments to Clark County, or any of the other red herrings and straw arguments you've tried twist to satisfy your tyrannical narrative. 

Out of range, listening to Glen Beck are you?

What Mr. Beck and yourself do not realize is that the lands that were being mitigated for the sale of the BLM lands to the Chinese WERE on Mr. Bundys allotment.

Note the BLM documents provided that acknowledge that as well as the necessary removal of the cattle from these lands for mitigation.

out of range, these were the documents that were once on the BLM website but were recently removed after this action started. Only to be found by an investigative reporter on other cached website sources.

Why would they remove these documents?

Did you watch the last video I posted?

Out of range, do you understand the mitigation process?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:
The government has not been absent, and up to 1993 they were paid for the grazing fees.  This is more like people having a house they do not live in so they rent it out.  After a few years the people stop paying their rent.  I would find a reason to throw them out. 
With government intruding into our lives more each year there is a part of me that wants to be on any side against them.  However, I can't support a thief in his efforts for free grazing.  I guess there are many other places to oppose the new oppression we see from our government other than supporting a dishonest rancher.

plaisnman I will ask you the same question I asked ron, what do you know about western water rights and land usage?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

doublebarrelsaloon Said:
I do agree with that however with grazing fees is there also an agreement on a management/maintenance level that the BLM, when taking fees also agrees to and maybe wasn't upholding their side? I'm not asking to argue I'm not an expert here and would like to learn more. 

Plainsman Said:
The government has not been absent, and up to 1993 they were paid for the grazing fees.  This is more like people having a house they do not live in so they rent it out.  After a few years the people stop paying their rent.  I would find a reason to throw them out. 
With government intruding into our lives more each year there is a part of me that wants to be on any side against them.  However, I can't support a thief in his efforts for free grazing.  I guess there are many other places to oppose the new oppression we see from our government other than supporting a dishonest rancher.

One needs to understand water rights in these western lands. The Hage case seemed to hinge on them. These water rights were apparently sold to previous generations decades ago before the BLM came into existance.

As I understand it there are land usage agreements that go with these water rights to certain areas.

apparnetly under Nevada law (and other western states) you have to "prove up" your water rights every 3 years to maintain the usage of the lands that are tied to them.

Wayne Hage was able to show an unbroken chain of doing this back to the actual purchase of the rights multiple generations ago.

The court upheld his claim. I do not know Mr. Bundy can do this any more than someone else knows he can not.

His daughter seems to think they can in a letter she wrote.

it is why I have asked the question multiple times and received no answer, why were the BLM agents destroying water systems established on these lands?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

marksman Said:
Thanks Gabe for the real facts again. I will wait for the huggers AKA plainsman and hard waterman to try to bs other people on here fishmahn will defend the socialist policy of this "president "  

What is hopefully noted here is I am not trying to change people like these minds. Nor do I wish to engage in the typical petty personal crap these discussions all too often become.

I simply thought a few relevant facts should be brought to light given the main stream medias lack of coverage and reporting of this story.

If it were not for the online news sources, who would have heard about this?

Who would have known the extent of a Senators involvement?

Who would have known what this was actually about (at least those that wish to explore it a bit) 
 
As I said, I find it curious some on this site are so quick to condemn other Federal agencies for the over reaches they perceive or are in fact very real, yet they are quick to defend and dismiss such over reach by Federal agencies they may approve of.

I honestly off the top of my head can not think of one single Federal agency that has not overstepped their bounds.

Our govt has indeed began a direct serious effort to grow large enough to "give us everything we need" and yet some do not want to take an honest look at the consequences we see every day of them incrementally "taking away everything we have".

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

in the end the final result will be determined by who has the most fire power.  If the government can convince the military it should kill americans than the government will win.  If not then the militias will win.  And there will be a huge political cost.

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Case in point.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/15/regulation-nation-breweries-f...

Regulation Nation: Breweries fight back against new government grain rules

A fight is brewing between American beer makers and the federal government over happy hour ... for cows. 

For centuries, brewers have given or sold the leftover grain from the brewing process to local ranchers and dairy farmers for cattle feed. But new regulations proposed by the Food and Drug Administration threaten to end that relationship. 

"The whole brewing community was shocked about it," said Josh Deth, co-owner of Revolution Brewing in Chicago, Ill. 

Deth, whose title is "Chairman of the Party," says it's always been a great deal for both sides. The ranchers get the grain, and the brewers get those leftovers removed from their facilities for free. 

"We're trading, giving something of value to each other and working it out. I think that's one of the really great things, and people really hate to see the government get involved in something where they can just as easily stay out of this." 

Under the FDA's proposed regulations, so-called spent grains would be regulated the same as pet food -- meaning brewers would first be required to dry and package the grain without it coming into contact with humans. 

Deth said the regulations would make it far too costly for him to prepare the grains to be passed along to farmers. The only remaining option would be sending it to a landfill, which would cost more than $100,000 a year. 

That would be bad for dairy and cattle farmers like Jim Minich, who gets 30 tons of spent grain from Revolution Brewing each week. Not only does the grain save him more than $100,000 a year in feed costs, his 750 cows also produce more milk after chowing down on their "happy hour." 

"I mean it's just basically grain and it's got a lot of yeast in it and it's wet, so it adds to the palatability of the feed so they eat more," he said. 

The regulations are part of the FDA's Food Safety Modernization Act, a sweeping new food safety reform law signed by President Obama in 2011. According to the FDA, the purpose of the law is to improve the safety of animal food. 

There's no record of spent grains causing any problems for cows or humans, though, according to Chris Thorne, a spokesman with the Beer Institute. 

"We already meet or exceed the goals that the FDA would like us to see. So we see these regulatory procedures as completely unnecessary," Thorne told Fox News. 

The FDA was flooded by comments from brewers, distillers and cow farmers when the proposed rule was announced.   

Several members of Congress have since added their voices as well to those asking the administration to reconsider the law. 

Responding to the outcry, the FDA said in a statement it is now looking to revise the language for the rule this summer before issuing a final decision sometime next year. 

"We are working to develop regulations that are responsive to the concerns expressed, practical for businesses, and that also help ensure that food for animals is safe and will not cause injury to animals or humans," the FDA said.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

First off my only reason for bringing up Cook was to highlight your hypocrisy nothing else. You where the one crowing about Cook breaking ND law, and then making the statement that you did concerning Bundy. 

Second what the county did right or wrong is not reflective of Bundy or his claims. If they where wrong it does not make Bundy right!!! 

Again why is it so hard for you to grasp that fact !!! 

The issues I have addressed are views and observations I have taken from Bundys own words and comments nothing else. He has been to court over this issue and lost at the US District level and now his option is to appeal to the 9th.

He has not been granted a stay of the orders and that is the rub. It has moved beyond the state level. So given that the Feds have a court ruling putting them in the right to move forward, unlike Cook who did get a hold granted until the appeals process moves forward.

That means to me very simply that until or unless a stay is granted he is in direct violation of the court findings not a state written law but Fed law on Fed owned land.

So all the smoke and mirror bull crap you continue to produce does not change these hard facts!!!

HE has the right to appeal, and ask for relief in putting a stay on the eviction of his cattle. To date that appeal from what I have seen has not been filed or granted. Without it the Feds do have legal authority to remove his cattle or place liens against them to recoup the costs incurred. With the court ruling in place they have control of the property and can affect changes to the property as they deem fit. That without a court order preventing it would include the water ways etc.... Like so many things gst, it is about the rule of law and proper challenge to them. Bundy if he does not want the feds to do anything to the water systems has to file an appeal and ask for a stay of the previous court ruling. If he fails to do so, and get that then the BLM or controlling agency will be within their court granted rights to continue.

Now again can you focus on the issues, and those are again the fact that Bundy has lost at the district level and needs to appeal to the 9th and then the SCOTUS if he loses there. If he does not get a stay granted he has to remove his cattle period.

Are the Feds in violation? NO but their actions where over the top in my view.

Harry Reid and his minions are in my view dirty as hell but have no bearing on if Bundy is wrong or right. Separate issues all together!!!!!

Now I have answered the questions in the best possible way.

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

E.Springers's picture
E.Springers
Offline
Joined: 4/22/02

???!!! wheeeeeee!!!!

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

ron, does Mr. Bundy have any less right to defy a law he believes is unjust than does Mr. Cook?

ron once again, what do you know about western water rights and the land usage tied to them?

Why would the BLM agents be destroying established water systems?

Please point out the "smoke and mirror crap" that you believe I am "producing"?

It is my opinion the facts show clearly what this is all about.

One again I do not think I have said Mr Bundy has not knowingly violated the BLM regulations as they view them in regards to paying their fees and instead paid them to the county which seems to have the authority to vote to sell these same BLM lands.

I do not believe I have claimed this is legal or not, only pointed out this is what Mr Bundy apparently believes should be legal, just as Cook believes his buying of land as a nonprofit without going thru the proper procedures here in our state should be legal.

ron if you wish to answer some of these questions and continue what was a non personal discussion please do. If you wish to make this personal please take it over to the other threads avalible on this topic to do so.


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

ron, the angst of Mr Bundys veiws arise from a change in BLM policies which have resulted in 52 of 53 ranchers being removed from these lands and would have reduced his allotment to a level he also would have been forced off.

His veiws are apparently he does not recognize the authority he once did of a Federal agency using his own dollars to put him out of business.

If a Federal agency that regulated blind cleaning businesses that you had to pay a fee to operate to started using these fees to reduce the size of your blind cleaning business to the point it was no longer viable what would be your views of their actions?

Indeed the Reid connection is separate from grazing fees, yet connected unless you deny the BLM documents removed from their website yet uncovered by investigative reporters that speak to the removal of Bundys cattle from BLM lands to mitigate BLM lands sold to a Chinese group by Reids son.

If you choose to over look this connection plus others (Reid redrawing the desert tortoise boundries to accomodated other developers)  perhaps you would claim these are unrelated.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

You are still missing the point, he has went to court on this issue and has repeatedly lost on his position. I did not say I disagree with his view, but whether one agrees or disagrees matters only to the point of a courts ruling. Courts do and can come to a different finding and the level of authority of the court then determines the course of which they can continue.

Lets back up a bit and apply your logic to the Cook case. When a ruling comes down if affirmed the state court ruling will prevail and the law continues, and Cook then has the option of appeal to the next higher level.

If the state loses which is where Bundy is at in his court journey, then they have to appeal to the next highest level and ask for the lower courts rulings to not be implemented until after the next appeal process.

Now all that said, it does not change the fact that Bundy has lost and currently has not appealed the loss and instead is defying a court order without relief from a higher court.

His actions are both civil and criminal gst, and since they are criminal, lets break this down to a clear understanding of the defiance. This would be no different than a pedaphile thumbing his nose at the courts and continuing to entice and produce child porn, after all in his view the Gov has made laws or changed laws that make his pursuit of his livelihood harder if not impossible.

I use this as an example because like it or not we are a nation goverened by laws and have a process of which we can challenge the laws. We are not a nation though that allows or condones the thumbing of our nose to those laws when we challenge them and lose.

If he had not had multiple days in court to present his position it would really be different, but he has had the day in court and lost more than once!!

I know it really galls you to have to admit that he is breaking the law and has lost in court on his position because it takes away the argument of the Fed Gov not having the right to do what they did. THEY DID AND DO HAVE THE RIGHT AT THIS POINT BASED ON THE COURT FINDINGS!!!

His next step is to appeal those finding and ask for a stay not to defy the courts and then piss and moan about the results of the defiance!!

So what is next? You going to cut and paste something else to try and keep this thread alive when most people who have taken any time at all to look into it will see that the rancher currently is in the wrong and the Fed while over the top where within their legal rights to act as they did and that this issue predates any Harry Reid involvement as well but does not excuse Dirty Harry from his unscrupulous behavior and acts.

There is really nothing left to be said on this, the rancher has to appeal or forget and move on. The feds have won in the courts because the rancher lacks the ability to document his claims and have had that affirmed by other courts. The people threatening the Fed officials with violence to impose their will are just as wrong and again I will say that continued wrong behavior and choices do not make a right.

So like or dislike the way it is, the hard fact is that the courts have ruled against the rancher and he is not entitled to use the lands and if he does he is acting in a criminal manner as well as civil without permission to do so from a higher court!!

THAT GST IS THE FACTS IN THIS CASE!!!

Unlike Hage who could prove his case and claims.

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

gdtrfb's picture
gdtrfb
Offline
Joined: 7/7/09

 I may have missed it but can you link a source of the destroying of water lines/tanks?


sickofthesmoke's picture
sickofthesmoke
Offline
Joined: 11/14/12

One Question?  Why if he legally owed the fed. govt. 1 million in delinquent fees did they not put a lien on his private property (private land, cows, etc.) Bundy would have to pay it or lose his property same as you or I. Did he owe the money or not? Another question is at 2 Dollars a head per month for 20 years yearound for 400 head comes to $192000.00 . a far cry from 1 million. My point is that if the feds wanted their money there were ways they could have got it. I'm not standing up for Bundy or the feds, but the whole thing stinks of buerocratic bullshit.

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

sickofthesmoke Said:
One Question?  Why if he legally owed the fed. govt. 1 million in delinquent fees did they not put a lien on his private property (private land, cows, etc.) Bundy would have to pay it or lose his property same as you or I. Did he owe the money or not? Another question is at 2 Dollars a head per month for 20 years yearound for 400 head comes to $192000.00 . a far cry from 1 million. My point is that if the feds wanted their money there were ways they could have got it. I'm not standing up for Bundy or the feds, but the whole thing stinks of buerocratic bullshit.

I would bet the fed's knew they couldn't win via the lien process so they chose this avenue and it backfired.

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

gdtrfb Said:
 I may have missed it but can you link a source of the destroying of water lines/tanks?

There were a couple reports that mentioned it early on. When I have a bit more time I will try to link them.


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Here is a view from a fellow rancher in the area that seems to know a bit.

Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended"AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

-Kena Lytle Gloeckner

as ladd mentioned earlier, these lands most times are under "multiple use laws". These Federal agencies are changing the allowed "use" to the point where these ranchers basically forfeit these allotments because they simply can not stay in business at the levels the Feds reduce them to.

Once the cattle are off, it is free for development.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:
You are still missing the point, he has went to court on this issue and has repeatedly lost on his position. I did not say I disagree with his view, but whether one agrees or disagrees matters only to the point of a courts ruling. Courts do and can come to a different finding and the level of authority of the court then determines the course of which they can continue.

Lets back up a bit and apply your logic to the Cook case. When a ruling comes down if affirmed the state court ruling will prevail and the law continues, and Cook then has the option of appeal to the next higher level.

If the state loses which is where Bundy is at in his court journey, then they have to appeal to the next highest level and ask for the lower courts rulings to not be implemented until after the next appeal process.

Now all that said, it does not change the fact that Bundy has lost and currently has not appealed the loss and instead is defying a court order without relief from a higher court.

His actions are both civil and criminal gst, and since they are criminal, lets break this down to a clear understanding of the defiance. This would be no different than a pedaphile thumbing his nose at the courts and continuing to entice and produce child porn, after all in his view the Gov has made laws or changed laws that make his pursuit of his livelihood harder if not impossible.

I use this as an example because like it or not we are a nation goverened by laws and have a process of which we can challenge the laws. We are not a nation though that allows or condones the thumbing of our nose to those laws when we challenge them and lose.

If he had not had multiple days in court to present his position it would really be different, but he has had the day in court and lost more than once!!

I know it really galls you to have to admit that he is breaking the law and has lost in court on his position because it takes away the argument of the Fed Gov not having the right to do what they did. THEY DID AND DO HAVE THE RIGHT AT THIS POINT BASED ON THE COURT FINDINGS!!!

His next step is to appeal those finding and ask for a stay not to defy the courts and then piss and moan about the results of the defiance!!

So what is next? You going to cut and paste something else to try and keep this thread alive when most people who have taken any time at all to look into it will see that the rancher currently is in the wrong and the Fed while over the top where within their legal rights to act as they did and that this issue predates any Harry Reid involvement as well but does not excuse Dirty Harry from his unscrupulous behavior and acts.

So now you are decreeing what everyone on FBO thinks? Perhaps to others it is simply so obvious it is not worth discussing.

There is really nothing left to be said on this, the rancher has to appeal or forget and move on. The feds have won in the courts because the rancher lacks the ability to document his claims and have had that affirmed by other courts. ron do you know this has been attempted in the court or was the case only over whether the fees were paid or not?  The people threatening the Fed officials with violence to impose their will are just as wrong and again I will say that continued wrong behavior and choices do not make a right.

So like or dislike the way it is, the hard fact is that the courts have ruled against the rancher and he is not entitled to use the lands and if he does he is acting in a criminal manner as well as civil without permission to do so from a higher court!!

THAT GST IS THE FACTS IN THIS CASE!!!

Unlike Hage who could prove his case and claims.

Ron, as I said I don;t think I have ever claimed Mr. Bundy is not "breaking the law" in not paying the fees to the BLM.

You wish to use pedophiles as an example, then would you equate Cook to a pedophile as well for his intentional breaking of the laws of the state of ND? You seem to believe making a living molesting a child and making a living ranching are equitable comparisons?

I noticed you duck answering this question ron.
If a Federal agency that regulated blind cleaning businesses that you had to pay a fee to operate to started using these fees to reduce the size of your blind cleaning business to the point it was no longer viable what would be your views of their actions?

Is the blind cleaning business equitable to a child porn business ron?

Perhaps a better example would be what Megan Kelly mentioned last nite. She acknowledged as a lawyer the courts have Mr. Bundy "dead to rights" was the phrase I believe she used. But then she went on to use as an example the Jim Crow laws.  At a point in our history the courts also had people that broke the Jim Crow laws "dead to rights" as well but thru their defiance these unjust laws were over turned.

Ron if you wish to ignore the "facts" regarding BLM documents they tried to hide (BLM, an agency now headed by Reids former senior advisor)  that showed a causation to remove these cattle linked directly back to Sen Reid (who had the lines for the sdesert torotise areas redrawn to allow for development) , thru his son Rory Reid who is the front man for a Chinese firm who purchased lands under approval from the Clark County Commission (far below their appraised value) which Reids son was the head of at the time of the sale,  which the BLM lands purchased by the Chinese needed to be mitigated with the very lands the BLM document shows were on Mr Bundys allotment and there in gave reason for the intent to move Mr. Bundys cattle off  all thru a developer that was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Sen Reid only to have his conviction overturned that same day by a US district court judge................................................it is certainly your right to have the opinion all this has nothing to do with hundreds of armed guards descending on Mr Bundys ranch.

Perhaps it is only about a rancher not paying grazing fees.

The Reverand Al Sharpton owes 1.9 million in back taxes and has not paid them, do you suppose the IRS will surround him with a few hundred armed agents? .

Pages