Folks on-line
'
1
Forums Albums Skins 1
Search Register Logon


You are logged in as a guest. Logon or register an account to access more features.
OTHER FORUMS:    Horse Trailers  -   Trucks   -   Cutting  -   Reining  -   Roping 
'
Rancher VS. Government
Moderators: luluwhit, gotothewhip, crossspur, ForumAdmin

Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... >
Now viewing page 5 [20 messages per page]
Last activity 2014-04-14 9:29 AM
247 replies, 22961 views

View previous thread :: View next thread
   General Discussion -> Barrel Talk
Refresh
Message format
 
dhdqhllc
Reg. Feb 2011
Posted 2014-04-10 12:47 PM (#6974009 - in reply to #6974005)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Always Off Topic


Posts: 6382
50001000100100100252525
Location: ND
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?

the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
Top of the page Bottom of the page
foundation horse
Reg. Aug 2004
Posted 2014-04-10 12:49 PM (#6974010 - in reply to #6974008)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


5000500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: North Texas
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:46 PM

i watched his interview last night......he is getting what he deserves.........which is a completely separate issue from federal 'ownership' of all the acres.....which is continually increasing........nor is it part of the issue involved with beieng able to video what is taking place.......which is not just a problem with federal enforcers, it is every level of govt enforcement......

but, back to Bundy......run the sucker off..... 

Who owns that particular land? The Feds or Clark County? Either way it is American Citizens not Federales! And per my understanding Cliven Bundy has attempted to pay grazing fees to Clark County Government.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
foundation horse
Reg. Aug 2004
Posted 2014-04-10 12:50 PM (#6974011 - in reply to #6974009)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


5000500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: North Texas
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM

foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?

the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  

And what about Brand Inspections? And sales of nonBrand approved Cattle? Do you condone theft? Or sales of stolen property?
Top of the page Bottom of the page
foundation horse
Reg. Aug 2004
Posted 2014-04-10 12:52 PM (#6974013 - in reply to #6972791)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


5000500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: North Texas
Oh I have watched the youtube video(s) regarding Cliven Bundy. I am still awaiting bscanchaser response to my questions.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
dhdqhllc
Reg. Feb 2011
Posted 2014-04-10 12:55 PM (#6974016 - in reply to #6974011)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Always Off Topic


Posts: 6382
50001000100100100252525
Location: ND
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:50 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
And what about Brand Inspections? And sales of nonBrand approved Cattle? Do you condone theft? Or sales of stolen property?

not sure what point you are trying to make about brands......regardless, he should have moved his cattle if he wanted to keep them....i don't care if the govt sells every head and spends it all on strippers......

now, if you want to talk about citizens that have really had their rights stomped on then lets forget this dipstick bundy and talk about folks that have been raided by these various agencies, had property confiscated and never even been charged or conviceted and never received their property or compensation......happens all the frickin time.......those are where the real problems are....not this dufus.... 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
foundation horse
Reg. Aug 2004
Posted 2014-04-10 12:58 PM (#6974018 - in reply to #6974016)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


5000500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: North Texas
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:55 PM

foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:50 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:47 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
And what about Brand Inspections? And sales of nonBrand approved Cattle? Do you condone theft? Or sales of stolen property?

not sure what point you are trying to make about brands......regardless, he should have moved his cattle if he wanted to keep them....i don't care if the govt sells every head and spends it all on strippers......

now, if you want to talk about citizens that have really had their rights stomped on then lets forget this dipstick bundy and talk about folks that have been raided by these various agencies, had property confiscated and never even been charged or conviceted and never received their property or compensation......happens all the frickin time.......those are where the real problems are....not this dufus.... 

Not that I disagree with you, but this "dufus" as you have dubbed him is actually becoming the symbolic face of those you have mentioned. So in the 'Big Picture' this Guy is doing a Good Thing!
Top of the page Bottom of the page
musikmaker
Reg. Sep 2004
Posted 2014-04-10 1:03 PM (#6974020 - in reply to #6974009)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Nicknameless


Posts: 4555
200020005002525
Location: I can see the end of the world from here!
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 11:47 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  

The 'black eye' you refer to is childs play compared to the loss of our country. 
Have either of you opened your minds to the possibility that Mr. Bundy is right? 
Are you continuing to gather info on this subject?
Are you educating yourselves as to the history of our Nation and intent of our forefathers?
Do you understand the history of our 'public land'?

Property taxes...one of the most insidious & UN Constitutional taxes to ever have been considered, much less implimented!
In a nut shell...they strip each of us from having the power to own anything.  They make us a 'subject'.
Going along with laws that are wrong does not equal integrity or honor.  Especially when those rules & regs come from an agency that's not answerable (as in elected) to the people...those rules are not legal.
It's our DUTY to stand up against those who would oppress us or our neighbor.
We have our 2nd Amendment rights...for when our 1st Amendment rights are being trampled...

 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
dhdqhllc
Reg. Feb 2011
Posted 2014-04-10 1:07 PM (#6974025 - in reply to #6974018)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Always Off Topic


Posts: 6382
50001000100100100252525
Location: ND
well....that could end up being true.....and if he becomes a martyr that leads to change......more power to the people......

but his cows should still be sold and strippers and steaks aquired...... 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
foundation horse
Reg. Aug 2004
Posted 2014-04-10 1:08 PM (#6974026 - in reply to #6974020)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


5000500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: North Texas
musikmaker - 2014-04-10 1:03 PM

dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 11:47 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  

The 'black eye' you refer to is childs play compared to the loss of our country. 
Have either of you opened your minds to the possibility that Mr. Bundy is right? 
Are you continuing to gather info on this subject?
Are you educating yourselves as to the history of our Nation and intent of our forefathers?
Do you understand the history of our 'public land'?

Property taxes...one of the most insidious & UN Constitutional taxes to ever have been considered, much less implimented!
In a nut shell...they strip each of us from having the power to own anything.  They make us a 'subject'.
Going along with laws that are wrong does not equal integrity or honor.  Especially when those rules & regs come from an agency that's not answerable (as in elected) to the people...those rules are not legal.
It's our DUTY to stand up against those who would oppress us or our neighbor.
We have our 2nd Amendment rights...for when our 1st Amendment rights are being trampled...

 

MM, I stated something earlier in this discussion very similar in regards to unConstitutional property taxes. Seems not many people can grasp this concept.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
dhdqhllc
Reg. Feb 2011
Posted 2014-04-10 1:08 PM (#6974027 - in reply to #6974020)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Always Off Topic


Posts: 6382
50001000100100100252525
Location: ND
musikmaker - 2014-04-10 1:03 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 11:47 AM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:44 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 9:54 AM
So I totally expect to get flamed (zipping up Flame suit) but as a Nevadan and knowing/reading about this story, I totally disagree with the Bundy’s.  He never owned the land(with title), he hasn’t paid his grazing right fees in 21 years, he failed to respond to multiple requests from the BLM for him to remove his cattle, he lost 2 federal court case’s and was issued court orders to remove his cattle-in which he didn’t do and is throwing a fit that they are removing them for him.    



Most ranchers in Nevada have been here since the 1800’s and are multi-generational, they have title to the land they own and then they pay AUM rent to run cattle on BLM land-the same land that they originally started grazing on.  All have had AUM number decreased due to BLM management-whether the reason was for overgrazing, fires or environmental…I’m sure they weren’t happy with the reductions but they all complied.  Basically in my opinion, Bundy wants something for free- when all the rest are paying for the same exact thing.  Why is he entitled to graze for free and what makes him entitled to be above the rest of the people who actually pay their fees and take care of their responsibilities?  Bundy’s background story is no different than any other ranching family I know-except all the others pay their dues and take care of business.  This is nothing but a black eye for the good ranchers who are diligent with managing their stock and grazing grounds.  Bundy’s are no different than the Dann Sisters, Crutcher’s or Caseys-who also found out they weren’t entitled to graze illegally and subsequently lost their herds to BLM round-ups because they also refused to remove them.  I know most people would rather not have the BLM…but what makes this type of anti-government behavior stop here?  My grandparents have lived on the same ranch they owned since the early 1900’s- are they now entitled to quit paying property taxes?  Can they just fire the county government because they choose not to recognize them as the authority of the land?



I guess for me, this isn’t any different than someone who lives off tax payers, quits paying their mortgage, fails to respond to eviction notices and then is mad that the sheriff comes to remove them and the bank takes all the possessions in the home to pay for the back owed debt… I don’t see too many people waging war in these scenarios- basically would call it life and not taking care of responsibilities to ensure they kept their house.  If you refuse to pay for your house, you don’t just miraculously get it for free-you get to move and figure something else out…

 

agreed 
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
the removal of the cattle was not heavy handed....in fact it should have been done years ago.....everything else....well....i said it in my previous post so you should already no the answer to the question  
The 'black eye' you refer to is childs play compared to the loss of our country. 

Have either of you opened your minds to the possibility that Mr. Bundy is right? 

Are you continuing to gather info on this subject?

Are you educating yourselves as to the history of our Nation and intent of our forefathers?

Do you understand the history of our 'public land'?



Property taxes...one of the most insidious & UN Constitutional taxes to ever have been considered, much less implimented!

In a nut shell...they strip each of us from having the power to own anything.  They make us a 'subject'.

Going along with laws that are wrong does not equal integrity or honor.  Especially when those rules & regs come from an agency that's not answerable (as in elected) to the people...those rules are not legal.

It's our DUTY to stand up against those who would oppress us or our neighbor.

We have our 2nd Amendment rights...for when our 1st Amendment rights are being trampled...


 

do you pay property taxes??? 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
bscanchaser
Reg. Feb 2005
Posted 2014-04-10 1:09 PM (#6974028 - in reply to #6973981)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government




100252525
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:18 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:07 PM I could understand if this was his private land but it’s not... I could understand if he was being removed after paying his dues but that didn’t happen either. I have asked several times on several different discussions and have yet to have someone answer- what makes him have concrete rights to this land that he doesn’t own? Beyond the bleeding heart story, this is basically a Democrat rancher who is living off the government and people because he, himself, determined that he is entitled to free grazing. Again, if he would have taken care of business then this would be a non-issue and as it is now his rights to the land are the same as everyone else’s meaning no grazing rights because Clark County bought out the permit and elimated the area from grazing rights to protect the tortis- Ever wonder why the Clark county sheriff hasn't intervened since it’s his jurisdiction? Probably because they leased the rights and are pushing for the trespasser to be removed.  The reason Clark county wouldn’t accept his money for grazing payment is because they don’t want him there either.

Since both of you live in the western states, I know you understand the land. Why shouldn't the BLM be able to reduce or revoke AUM's? Seriously, when Nevada catches on fire it’s not a nice little campfire- its typically huge acreage loss and with the average of 7" of precipitation per year it takes a while (years/decades) to re-vegetate. I’m by no means an environmentalist or government supporter, but why should this particular rancher’s grazing come before anything else? BLM land isn’t designated for only cattle; People use these areas for hunting, trail rides, hiking, sight-seeing, photography... if the lands not supported then none of the other uses will be either.

As far as “rights” go...laws were put into place to protect common people. Whether it’s at the city, county, state or federal level majority of people seem to abide by everything other law so why is this one different?
From my understanding The Cliven Bundy Ranching Claim dates back to the 1880s, predating Nevada as a State I believe. Now on whose Authority and when was the Bureau of Land Management created? Answer 1934 under FDR and His New Deal. Also, per Cliven Bundy he has made Land Improvements that the unConstitutional BLM has refused to do, all the while offering to pay Grazing Fees first to the unConstitutional BLM and then to Clark County Nevada. Now another question: Are You (bscanchaser) familiar with The U.S. Constitution? And particularly The 10th Amendment? Because per The Constitution, The BLM is unauthorized and The 10th Amendment protects States' Rights. I eagerly await your response(s).

 Sorry to keep you hanging- I had some work to do.  Yes I'm familiar with the 10th amendment... Apparently so is our state Governor since Sandoval activated the state militia to remove the BLM- oh wait, that didn't happen.  His only concern was the first amendment areas in which he asked for them to be taken down- last I saw they were still in place so that was pressing.  Idk, for some reason it seems like the county and state are both ok with allowing the BLM to handle this situation since they only asked that they reconsider their approach.  Ever wonder if the State and County asked the BLM to intervene to protect their rights to the ground Bundy was illegally grazing? 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
foundation horse
Reg. Aug 2004
Posted 2014-04-10 1:09 PM (#6974030 - in reply to #6974025)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


5000500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: North Texas
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 1:07 PM

well....that could end up being true.....and if he becomes a martyr that leads to change......more power to the people......

but his cows should still be sold and strippers and steaks aquired...... 

Surprise.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
rodeomom13
Reg. Apr 2008
Posted 2014-04-10 1:12 PM (#6974034 - in reply to #6972791)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



I'm not opinionated


Posts: 4597
20002000500252525
Location: Online
Maybe this is just what America needs. The more the government oversteps and bullies, the better the chance of waking a sleeping giant in the American people. This is why we need to fight for our rights, whether it's affecting us personally or not, because if they get away with this, that will only embolden them to go after everyone else. Right now our 2nd Amendment rights are most important, without that we are helpless. Our current administration knows this, as soon as they get their way, we're screwed. 



 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
foundation horse
Reg. Aug 2004
Posted 2014-04-10 1:12 PM (#6974035 - in reply to #6974028)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


5000500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: North Texas
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 1:09 PM

foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:18 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:07 PM I could understand if this was his private land but it’s not... I could understand if he was being removed after paying his dues but that didn’t happen either. I have asked several times on several different discussions and have yet to have someone answer- what makes him have concrete rights to this land that he doesn’t own? Beyond the bleeding heart story, this is basically a Democrat rancher who is living off the government and people because he, himself, determined that he is entitled to free grazing. Again, if he would have taken care of business then this would be a non-issue and as it is now his rights to the land are the same as everyone else’s meaning no grazing rights because Clark County bought out the permit and elimated the area from grazing rights to protect the tortis- Ever wonder why the Clark county sheriff hasn't intervened since it’s his jurisdiction? Probably because they leased the rights and are pushing for the trespasser to be removed.  The reason Clark county wouldn’t accept his money for grazing payment is because they don’t want him there either.

Since both of you live in the western states, I know you understand the land. Why shouldn't the BLM be able to reduce or revoke AUM's? Seriously, when Nevada catches on fire it’s not a nice little campfire- its typically huge acreage loss and with the average of 7" of precipitation per year it takes a while (years/decades) to re-vegetate. I’m by no means an environmentalist or government supporter, but why should this particular rancher’s grazing come before anything else? BLM land isn’t designated for only cattle; People use these areas for hunting, trail rides, hiking, sight-seeing, photography... if the lands not supported then none of the other uses will be either.

As far as “rights” go...laws were put into place to protect common people. Whether it’s at the city, county, state or federal level majority of people seem to abide by everything other law so why is this one different?
From my understanding The Cliven Bundy Ranching Claim dates back to the 1880s, predating Nevada as a State I believe. Now on whose Authority and when was the Bureau of Land Management created? Answer 1934 under FDR and His New Deal. Also, per Cliven Bundy he has made Land Improvements that the unConstitutional BLM has refused to do, all the while offering to pay Grazing Fees first to the unConstitutional BLM and then to Clark County Nevada. Now another question: Are You (bscanchaser) familiar with The U.S. Constitution? And particularly The 10th Amendment? Because per The Constitution, The BLM is unauthorized and The 10th Amendment protects States' Rights. I eagerly await your response(s).

 Sorry to keep you hanging- I had some work to do.  Yes I'm familiar with the 10th amendment... Apparently so is our state Governor since Sandoval activated the state militia to remove the BLM- oh wait, that didn't happen.  His only concern was the first amendment areas in which he asked for them to be taken down- last I saw they were still in place so that was pressing.  Idk, for some reason it seems like the county and state are both ok with allowing the BLM to handle this situation since they only asked that they reconsider their approach.  Ever wonder if the State and County asked the BLM to intervene to protect their rights to the ground Bundy was illegally grazing? 

I have as yet to see Constitutional Proof that Cliven Bundy was or is illegally grazing. Also, has the thought occurred to you that perhaps just perhaps there is great pressure being brought to bear on Nevada's Governor? And Clark County Governing Officials?
Top of the page Bottom of the page
FlyingJT
Reg. Jan 2014
Posted 2014-04-10 1:22 PM (#6974042 - in reply to #6972791)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Expert


Posts: 1705
1000500100100
Opinions?


BLM Seeks Public Interest for Solar Energy Development in the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone



WASHINGTON, D.C. – Washington, D.C. - The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) today announced that it is accepting preliminary right-of-way (ROW) applications and expressions of interest from interested parties for conducting a solar competitive auction on the 5,717–acre Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone in Clark County, Nevada.

The BLM's current action builds on the Western Solar Energy Plan, a two-year planning effort conducted on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Energy to expand domestic energy production and spur development of solar energy on public lands in six western states. The Western Solar Energy Plan provides a blueprint for utility-scale solar energy permitting in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah by establishing Solar Energy Zones with access to existing or planned transmission, incentives for development within those Solar Energy Zones, and a process through which to consider additional Solar Energy Zones and solar projects.

This public notification is the first step toward possible competitive solar energy development on public lands in the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone. Once the 30 day notice period closes, the BLM will review all submissions from interested parties to see if other companies are interested in developing solar energy in these areas. If the BLM determines that sufficient competition exists, it may use a competitive bidding process, consistent with its regulations, to select a preferred applicant in the Solar Energy Zone.

“By locating projects in areas of high development potential and low resource conflict, the BLM is providing a more predictable process for industry while ensuring better outcomes for communities and the environment,” said Principal Deputy Director Neil Kornze. “In addition, competitive bidding for solar energy development ensures that we are securing a fair return for the American taxpayer.”

Today’s announcement also includes the release of the "Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone,” a pilot effort by the BLM that identifies mitigation priorities and options in advance of development. The strategy takes into account the resource conditions of the land and regional trends informed by BLM's recent Rapid Ecoregional Assessments. Regional mitigation plans are intended to provide a more predictable and effective landscape-scale approach to mitigation, while providing both greater certainty for project developers and more benefit to the natural resources affected by energy development. The Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone is the first of several pilot plans to be developed by the BLM.

The strategy was developed in collaboration with dozens of stakeholders to address key issues such as where and how mitigation may be achieved and the costs associated with doing so. The BLM will conduct additional stakeholder outreach on the development of future regional mitigation strategies for solar energy zones.

The Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone is available online at: http://on.doi.gov/1iJOtNb.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
dhdqhllc
Reg. Feb 2011
Posted 2014-04-10 1:26 PM (#6974043 - in reply to #6974035)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Always Off Topic


Posts: 6382
50001000100100100252525
Location: ND
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 1:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 1:09 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:18 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:07 PM I could understand if this was his private land but it’s not... I could understand if he was being removed after paying his dues but that didn’t happen either. I have asked several times on several different discussions and have yet to have someone answer- what makes him have concrete rights to this land that he doesn’t own? Beyond the bleeding heart story, this is basically a Democrat rancher who is living off the government and people because he, himself, determined that he is entitled to free grazing. Again, if he would have taken care of business then this would be a non-issue and as it is now his rights to the land are the same as everyone else’s meaning no grazing rights because Clark County bought out the permit and elimated the area from grazing rights to protect the tortis- Ever wonder why the Clark county sheriff hasn't intervened since it’s his jurisdiction? Probably because they leased the rights and are pushing for the trespasser to be removed.  The reason Clark county wouldn’t accept his money for grazing payment is because they don’t want him there either.

Since both of you live in the western states, I know you understand the land. Why shouldn't the BLM be able to reduce or revoke AUM's? Seriously, when Nevada catches on fire it’s not a nice little campfire- its typically huge acreage loss and with the average of 7" of precipitation per year it takes a while (years/decades) to re-vegetate. I’m by no means an environmentalist or government supporter, but why should this particular rancher’s grazing come before anything else? BLM land isn’t designated for only cattle; People use these areas for hunting, trail rides, hiking, sight-seeing, photography... if the lands not supported then none of the other uses will be either.

As far as “rights” go...laws were put into place to protect common people. Whether it’s at the city, county, state or federal level majority of people seem to abide by everything other law so why is this one different?
From my understanding The Cliven Bundy Ranching Claim dates back to the 1880s, predating Nevada as a State I believe. Now on whose Authority and when was the Bureau of Land Management created? Answer 1934 under FDR and His New Deal. Also, per Cliven Bundy he has made Land Improvements that the unConstitutional BLM has refused to do, all the while offering to pay Grazing Fees first to the unConstitutional BLM and then to Clark County Nevada. Now another question: Are You (bscanchaser) familiar with The U.S. Constitution? And particularly The 10th Amendment? Because per The Constitution, The BLM is unauthorized and The 10th Amendment protects States' Rights. I eagerly await your response(s).
 Sorry to keep you hanging- I had some work to do.  Yes I'm familiar with the 10th amendment... Apparently so is our state Governor since Sandoval activated the state militia to remove the BLM- oh wait, that didn't happen.  His only concern was the first amendment areas in which he asked for them to be taken down- last I saw they were still in place so that was pressing.  Idk, for some reason it seems like the county and state are both ok with allowing the BLM to handle this situation since they only asked that they reconsider their approach.  Ever wonder if the State and County asked the BLM to intervene to protect their rights to the ground Bundy was illegally grazing? 
I have as yet to see Constitutional Proof that Cliven Bundy was or is illegally grazing. Also, has the thought occurred to you that perhaps just perhaps there is great pressure being brought to bear on Nevada's Governor? And Clark County Governing Officials?

you may not see constituional proof of this but Clive Bundy has over and over acknowledged this as BLM property and used this a s part of his argument.......can't have it both ways Clive.... 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
dhdqhllc
Reg. Feb 2011
Posted 2014-04-10 1:27 PM (#6974045 - in reply to #6974042)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Always Off Topic


Posts: 6382
50001000100100100252525
Location: ND
FlyingJT - 2014-04-10 1:22 PM Opinions? BLM Seeks Public Interest for Solar Energy Development in the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone WASHINGTON, D.C. – Washington, D.C. - The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) today announced that it is accepting preliminary right-of-way (ROW) applications and expressions of interest from interested parties for conducting a solar competitive auction on the 5,717–acre Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone in Clark County, Nevada. The BLM's current action builds on the Western Solar Energy Plan, a two-year planning effort conducted on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Energy to expand domestic energy production and spur development of solar energy on public lands in six western states. The Western Solar Energy Plan provides a blueprint for utility-scale solar energy permitting in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah by establishing Solar Energy Zones with access to existing or planned transmission, incentives for development within those Solar Energy Zones, and a process through which to consider additional Solar Energy Zones and solar projects. This public notification is the first step toward possible competitive solar energy development on public lands in the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone. Once the 30 day notice period closes, the BLM will review all submissions from interested parties to see if other companies are interested in developing solar energy in these areas. If the BLM determines that sufficient competition exists, it may use a competitive bidding process, consistent with its regulations, to select a preferred applicant in the Solar Energy Zone. “By locating projects in areas of high development potential and low resource conflict, the BLM is providing a more predictable process for industry while ensuring better outcomes for communities and the environment,” said Principal Deputy Director Neil Kornze. “In addition, competitive bidding for solar energy development ensures that we are securing a fair return for the American taxpayer.” Today’s announcement also includes the release of the "Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone,” a pilot effort by the BLM that identifies mitigation priorities and options in advance of development. The strategy takes into account the resource conditions of the land and regional trends informed by BLM's recent Rapid Ecoregional Assessments. Regional mitigation plans are intended to provide a more predictable and effective landscape-scale approach to mitigation, while providing both greater certainty for project developers and more benefit to the natural resources affected by energy development. The Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone is the first of several pilot plans to be developed by the BLM. The strategy was developed in collaboration with dozens of stakeholders to address key issues such as where and how mitigation may be achieved and the costs associated with doing so. The BLM will conduct additional stakeholder outreach on the development of future regional mitigation strategies for solar energy zones. The Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone is available online at: http://on.doi.gov/1iJOtNb.

more frickin taxpayer waste...... 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
dhdqhllc
Reg. Feb 2011
Posted 2014-04-10 1:27 PM (#6974046 - in reply to #6972791)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government



Always Off Topic


Posts: 6382
50001000100100100252525
Location: ND
and to add to the rest of my opinion.....

i think the regulations regarding the desert tortoise were appropriate and a good compromise for the ranchers in that area...... 
Top of the page Bottom of the page
foundation horse
Reg. Aug 2004
Posted 2014-04-10 1:30 PM (#6974047 - in reply to #6974042)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government


Military family

Semper Fi


5000500050005000500050001000100100100100252525
Location: North Texas
FlyingJT - 2014-04-10 1:22 PM

Opinions?


BLM Seeks Public Interest for Solar Energy Development in the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone



WASHINGTON, D.C. – Washington, D.C. - The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) today announced that it is accepting preliminary right-of-way (ROW) applications and expressions of interest from interested parties for conducting a solar competitive auction on the 5,717–acre Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone in Clark County, Nevada.

The BLM's current action builds on the Western Solar Energy Plan, a two-year planning effort conducted on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Energy to expand domestic energy production and spur development of solar energy on public lands in six western states. The Western Solar Energy Plan provides a blueprint for utility-scale solar energy permitting in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah by establishing Solar Energy Zones with access to existing or planned transmission, incentives for development within those Solar Energy Zones, and a process through which to consider additional Solar Energy Zones and solar projects.

This public notification is the first step toward possible competitive solar energy development on public lands in the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone. Once the 30 day notice period closes, the BLM will review all submissions from interested parties to see if other companies are interested in developing solar energy in these areas. If the BLM determines that sufficient competition exists, it may use a competitive bidding process, consistent with its regulations, to select a preferred applicant in the Solar Energy Zone.

“By locating projects in areas of high development potential and low resource conflict, the BLM is providing a more predictable process for industry while ensuring better outcomes for communities and the environment,” said Principal Deputy Director Neil Kornze. “In addition, competitive bidding for solar energy development ensures that we are securing a fair return for the American taxpayer.”

Today’s announcement also includes the release of the "Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone,” a pilot effort by the BLM that identifies mitigation priorities and options in advance of development. The strategy takes into account the resource conditions of the land and regional trends informed by BLM's recent Rapid Ecoregional Assessments. Regional mitigation plans are intended to provide a more predictable and effective landscape-scale approach to mitigation, while providing both greater certainty for project developers and more benefit to the natural resources affected by energy development. The Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone is the first of several pilot plans to be developed by the BLM.

The strategy was developed in collaboration with dozens of stakeholders to address key issues such as where and how mitigation may be achieved and the costs associated with doing so. The BLM will conduct additional stakeholder outreach on the development of future regional mitigation strategies for solar energy zones.

The Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone is available online at: http://on.doi.gov/1iJOtNb.


Coincidence that the BLM is just now enforcing Grazing Permits? I think not. Follow the money folks!
Top of the page Bottom of the page
bscanchaser
Reg. Feb 2005
Posted 2014-04-10 1:30 PM (#6974048 - in reply to #6974035)
Subject: RE: Rancher VS. Government




100252525
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 1:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 1:09 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 12:18 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:07 PM I could understand if this was his private land but it’s not... I could understand if he was being removed after paying his dues but that didn’t happen either. I have asked several times on several different discussions and have yet to have someone answer- what makes him have concrete rights to this land that he doesn’t own? Beyond the bleeding heart story, this is basically a Democrat rancher who is living off the government and people because he, himself, determined that he is entitled to free grazing. Again, if he would have taken care of business then this would be a non-issue and as it is now his rights to the land are the same as everyone else’s meaning no grazing rights because Clark County bought out the permit and elimated the area from grazing rights to protect the tortis- Ever wonder why the Clark county sheriff hasn't intervened since it’s his jurisdiction? Probably because they leased the rights and are pushing for the trespasser to be removed.  The reason Clark county wouldn’t accept his money for grazing payment is because they don’t want him there either.

Since both of you live in the western states, I know you understand the land. Why shouldn't the BLM be able to reduce or revoke AUM's? Seriously, when Nevada catches on fire it’s not a nice little campfire- its typically huge acreage loss and with the average of 7" of precipitation per year it takes a while (years/decades) to re-vegetate. I’m by no means an environmentalist or government supporter, but why should this particular rancher’s grazing come before anything else? BLM land isn’t designated for only cattle; People use these areas for hunting, trail rides, hiking, sight-seeing, photography... if the lands not supported then none of the other uses will be either.

As far as “rights” go...laws were put into place to protect common people. Whether it’s at the city, county, state or federal level majority of people seem to abide by everything other law so why is this one different?
From my understanding The Cliven Bundy Ranching Claim dates back to the 1880s, predating Nevada as a State I believe. Now on whose Authority and when was the Bureau of Land Management created? Answer 1934 under FDR and His New Deal. Also, per Cliven Bundy he has made Land Improvements that the unConstitutional BLM has refused to do, all the while offering to pay Grazing Fees first to the unConstitutional BLM and then to Clark County Nevada. Now another question: Are You (bscanchaser) familiar with The U.S. Constitution? And particularly The 10th Amendment? Because per The Constitution, The BLM is unauthorized and The 10th Amendment protects States' Rights. I eagerly await your response(s).
 Sorry to keep you hanging- I had some work to do.  Yes I'm familiar with the 10th amendment... Apparently so is our state Governor since Sandoval activated the state militia to remove the BLM- oh wait, that didn't happen.  His only concern was the first amendment areas in which he asked for them to be taken down- last I saw they were still in place so that was pressing.  Idk, for some reason it seems like the county and state are both ok with allowing the BLM to handle this situation since they only asked that they reconsider their approach.  Ever wonder if the State and County asked the BLM to intervene to protect their rights to the ground Bundy was illegally grazing? 
I have as yet to see Constitutional Proof that Cliven Bundy was or is illegally grazing. Also, has the thought occurred to you that perhaps just perhaps there is great pressure being brought to bear on Nevada's Governor? And Clark County Governing Officials?

Well I guess the Constitutional proof is that Clark County, Nevada purchased all rights to this land and declared it a no-grazing permit area after Bundy refused to pay his fees.  Nothing was taken from him until he choices allowed the permit to sell to another entity- typically happens in non-payment instances.  Clark county refused to accept his payment because they don't want him out there.  I would imagine the pressure isn't to refrain from getting involved- I would be Pi$&ed off if I paid rent and some freeloader took up residence without my permission.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Jump to page : < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... >
Now viewing page 5 [20 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
Message format
 

'
Registered to: Barrel Horse World
(Delete all cookies set by this site)
Running MegaBBS ASP Forum Software
© 2002-2017 PD9 Software