|
|
  Semper Fi
    
Location: North Texas | dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 1:26 PM
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?
Then what of Cliven Bundy's claim dating back to the 1880s? Which by the way predates Nevada as a State and The BLM. | |
| | |
 That's White "Man" to You
Posts: 5515
| 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.....
And then once he is gone, move onto each national park and monument and run off the cattlemen, then close the roads, then run off the horseback riders. After all it should be the granola eating, subaru driving hippies that should have uninterupted access.
Oh wait...that is already happening. (Escalante Grand Staircase National Monument)
| |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 1857
| dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 1:26 PM
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?
Lets put this in the perspective of an average citizen(thank you Amy): What if this the government suddenly controlled the street in front of your house. Imagine that you start paying a toll each month to utilize that street as well as paying your taxes, and then the toll increases, and then it goes from monthly to daily, and it continues to get more and more restrictive and then you attempt to take these matters before your representatives and before your courts but they just ignore your problems because they are getting paid by the same people that you are butting heads with. Then you realize that you are going into Court and the things said within the court room are not reflected in the transcripts and your right to record it yourself is prohibited. And then let it sink in that every dime you pay in taxes and tolls is being used in every way to combat all that you do to bring awareness to the situation.
| |
| | |
 Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | foundation horse - 2014-04-10 1:32 PM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 1:26 PM 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? Then what of Cliven Bundy's claim dating back to the 1880s? Which by the way predates Nevada as a State and The BLM.
which is trying to have it both ways.......hippocritical.....you can't pay the fees, get ****ed that they reduce your stocking rates, quit paying fees, claim it's the landowners responsibility (BLM) to fence out these areas of concern to keep Bundy's cattle out based on state law, then claim it's all your property anyway because you had a melon farm and a few wandering cattle in the 1880's and never bothered to deed anything.....then go on to claim that any unbranded cattle found in this 600,000 acres must be yours.... | |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:08 PM 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…
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
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...
Lol...point taken!
I sure hope some of this leads to an uprising in that regard, though! Gotta start somewhere!
| |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | here's the case we should be outraged by.....
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152735638969167&set=vb.71233394166&type=2&theater | |
| | |
| foundation horse - 2014-04-10 1:32 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 1:26 PM
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?
Then what of Cliven Bundy's claim dating back to the 1880s? Which by the way predates Nevada as a State and The BLM.
Have you seen any paperwork to prove this? Ya, me neither. I guess that's probably why he lost the court cases. You are listening to one mans story which seems to contain a fair bit of double speak at times when you compare different things that have been said. He has clear title of 150 acres that I have found- nothing more, nothing less. | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | musikmaker - 2014-04-10 1:39 PM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 12:08 PM 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…
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
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...
I sure hope some of this leads to an uprising in that regard, though! Gotta start somewhere!
fair enough.....
i agree though that the people need to start taking back control from these agencies and the govt that has turned them loose....on every level....and i think you are seeing more of it.... | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 1:35 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 1:32 PM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 1:26 PM 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? Then what of Cliven Bundy's claim dating back to the 1880s? Which by the way predates Nevada as a State and The BLM.
Per Cliven Bundy, he has made land improvements (water holes, fencing, gates, etc) that the BLM refused to do. I would imagine that these improvements were done when Cliven was still paying Grazing Fees. What about these investments? | |
| | |
| foundation horse - 2014-04-10 1:43 PM
dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 1:35 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-10 1:32 PM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 1:26 PM 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? Then what of Cliven Bundy's claim dating back to the 1880s? Which by the way predates Nevada as a State and The BLM.
Per Cliven Bundy, he has made land improvements (water holes, fencing, gates, etc ) that the BLM refused to do. I would imagine that these improvements were done when Cliven was still paying Grazing Fees. What about these investments?
No different than putting in granite counter tops and tile floors- when your house gets repossessed you tend to not have rights to that anymore. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-10 1:32 PM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 1:26 PM 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? Then what of Cliven Bundy's claim dating back to the 1880s? Which by the way predates Nevada as a State and The BLM. Have you seen any paperwork to prove this? Ya, me neither. I guess that's probably why he lost the court cases. You are listening to one mans story which seems to contain a fair bit of double speak at times when you compare different things that have been said. He has clear title of 150 acres that I have found- nothing more, nothing less.
Hold on there...once upon a time, when the land was considered 'wasteland', the gov't, in order to live up to their end of the deal (disposing of land per Treaty), offered much more than the 160 acre homestead...many folks took advantage of it & some even had thousands of acres...in 1910 and therebouts, the fed 'retracted' these land grants, leaving many a rancher at the mercy of leasing from the gov't. They did this due to 'monopoly laws', which seriously makes me ask how 'they' or say, the Nature Conservancy bunch, can now 'own' huge tracts of land...talk about hypocricy...or should we call it what it really is? Thievery.
BTW...Bundy has never said that the BLM owns the land...he maintains that the people of Clark County Neveada ownit and I agree.
| |
| | |
 Cactus Cowgirl
Posts: 2791
Location: Montana | jbhoot - 2014-04-08 12:15 PM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-08 12:24 PM he should have paid his rent......which is pretty cheap to start with.....i don't really have any sympathy for him in regards to his ranch and living of the govt for free for the last couple of decades......so, the govt moves off his cattle ....big deal....and so they have half an army.....i don't really care either....there is a risk that it could turn into a shootout.....
but....i have a huge problem with the family members being mistreated for documenting this.....but this happens with law enforcement at every level and people need to wake up and realize that most of those involved in law enforcement do not have our rights in mind when it comes to protection......they protect the govt.....and themselves... I would agree with you if all the facts are true. But when you read deeper this rancher and his family have been using this land since the 1880's. I tend to agree with the rancher. When you look at the history of this land I am not to sure that the BLM has a right to this land. It is certainly a gray area.
Ok, I have not read all of this, so if this has been brought up, I apologize. The 1880 crap is a mute point. If the family was tilling that land then, they should have filed for a homestead like thousands of other would be ranchers and farmers did back in the day.
The Allan Savory deal really set me off. We have neighbors who are operating under the Allan Savory grazing and let me tell, it may work in certain soil and climates. It does not work here and I believe Nevada has similiar soil and conditions. You have to have lots of water for one thing.
From what I have read the BLM is in the wrong for letting this man graze his cattle for 20 some years without paying a dime. We also have BLM leases and due to sage chickens have certain times we can't be on the land. We abide by the rules or we loose our lease. End of story.
Also you do not purchase leases like you do private land. As ranches are sold the leases go with the ranch at BLM approval. If you do not abide by the lease agreements they can offer the lease to others. | |
| | |
| 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.  Â
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…
Â
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario?
Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when opposition has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done. | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | musikmaker - 2014-04-10 1:49 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:40 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-10 1:32 PM dhdqhllc - 2014-04-10 1:26 PM 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? Then what of Cliven Bundy's claim dating back to the 1880s? Which by the way predates Nevada as a State and The BLM. Have you seen any paperwork to prove this? Ya, me neither. I guess that's probably why he lost the court cases. You are listening to one mans story which seems to contain a fair bit of double speak at times when you compare different things that have been said. He has clear title of 150 acres that I have found- nothing more, nothing less.
BTW...Bundy has never said that the BLM owns the land...he maintains that the people of Clark County Neveada ownit and I agree.
don't even get me started on these fricking 'conservation' groups and their land ownership (free from taxation) and their permanent easements (another thing that should be illegal and dissolve with change of ownership) ;........yes, hippocricy (i prefer a hippo reference) it is not.....call it what it is thievery....
WHEN ARE THOSE IN AGRICULTURE AND EVEN SPORTSMEN GOING TO WAKE UP.......
DUCKS UNLIMITED, NATURE'S CONSERVANCY, PHEASANTS FOREVER, ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION....ON AND ON AND ON......ALL OF THE 'CONSERVATION' GROUPS WANT NOTHING MORE BUT TO CONTROL THE LAND AND EVENTUALLY ALLOW NO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION OR HUNTING.....WAKE UP FARMERS, RANCHERS AND HUNTERS......YOU THINK THESE EASEMENTS ARE FREE MONEY...AND RIGHT NOW THEY CAN BE HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY AND GROWING....THEY AREN'T....AND SOMEDAY THEY WILL BE USED TO TELL YOUR GRANDKIDS THAT THEIR DAYS OF FARMING, RANCHING AND HUNTING ARE OVER....WITH THE HELP OF THE GOVT YOU ARE ELECTING.... | |
| | |
 I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | They just had a piece on this on Fox news and they said they were removing his cattle because of an endangered tortoise. I just love how ALL the news agencies report the news half ass.  | |
| | |
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | well.....that is the short version.... | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 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…
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario? Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when op position has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
Aha! NOW we know the 'rest of the story'! All I can say is that for those foolish enough to wear the wrong uniform...well, sorry bout' their luck. Maybe they should get on the 'right' side.
And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.
Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene? It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty. Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.
I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle!
America better wake the heck up.
| |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1857
| musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 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…
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario? Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when op position has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.
Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene? It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty. Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.
I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle!
America better wake the heck up.
Against all enemies, foriegn and DOMESTIC! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM
bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 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.  Â
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…
Â
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario? Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when op position has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.
Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene? It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty. Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.
I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle!Â
America better wake the heck up.Â
In my original response I told bscanchaser I hoped she or he and theirs liked being a subject. Turns out I was closer than I thought! ETA Hail to The Feds!
As Me and Mine: We like Our Freedom! And don't need the Feds!
Edited by foundation horse 2014-04-10 2:27 PM
| |
| | |
Holy Fruit Loops!
Posts: 1708
Location: Colorado | musikmaker - 2014-04-10 2:12 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-10 12:56 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…
Do the two of you agree with the heavy handed ways being employed by the Feds in this scenario? Considering my neighbors husband is down there potentially risking his life to remove cattle that shouldn't be there- yes, I agree with them being armed when op position has threatened violence. He has 3 young children that would be fatherless if something were to happen. I support city, county and state law enforcement to carry similar weapons when they are enforcing the law- why would I think the federal level shouldn't have the same protections? Several people in my little town have been assigned to this operation- all have lives that have been disrupted by a person who thinks he is above the law and all have families and friends to return to when the job is done.
And yes, I mean that more than you can ever know.
Why aren't the law enforcement officials who actually have authority & jurisdiction on the scene? It's NOT their option to just hand it over to the federal goons...they take an oath to protect our property, freedom & liberty. Nobody forced them into that job...they better be a patriot or get the he$$ outta the way.
I offer absolutely no sympathy for those standing in the way of our freedoms or those who are helping to steal those cattle!
America better wake the heck up.
Right side?? They are American citizens, hired to do a job! Bundy is the one who called for a Range war and is workin towards getting every goofy milita want a be in the country involved.
Those cowboys who are there moving cattle are not the bad guys and they do not deserve to be shot at or treated like dirt either.
Thanks to the Bundy family and their videos Growney Brothers Rodeo Co. is now receiving death threats.
If Bundy feels it is time for a range war he needs to be front and center. And it is with the court system NOT a bunch of cowboys trying to make some day money to support their families!
karen | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line