musikmaker - 2014-04-14 10:30 AM   I've never denied a certain idealistic view...not so much the pacifist, but I don't 'get' people who refuse to study & dig for the truth...no different than people saying we're a Democracy!  Say something enough times and people believe it.
I never said the fed can't 'own' land...they can within the perimeters set forth by the Constitution...it does not include large tracts of land such as we are now dealing with, granted, a state can abandon land to fed, however, the fed is not in the position of accepting as it undermines the basic rights of the citizens. 
The Eisenhower Report of 1962 lists ALL lands that the fed is affiliated with, the year it was 'acquired' and the jurisdictional code applied.  My issue with the federal judicial authority concerning these lands is that it's been determined that the authority lies with the state.  These are issues that people need to understand so we may get on the same page...I also take issue wth the many corrupt instances of judicial overreach.  It happens.  And I'm not the threat...apathy is.
Anyhow...I've posted all the info I have in this & other threads...for those who are interested in the letter of the law...it's there.
 

FlyingJT - 2014-04-15 8:49 AM There's a larger thread "Rancher vs Government" that has lots more info and pages. Good luck!

FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 9:32 AM QUIT SUCKING AT THE PUBLIC TEAT. Join the rest of us ranchers not fortunate enough to own a federal or state grazing allotment and buy a ranch, pay a mortgage, & pay land taxes. Then you can do as you d**n well please. You can graze it into the ground and kill every living creature that takes feed away from your cows. That will be your right as a land owner. But until then, you do not own the federal and state land that you graze your cows on. We all do, and everyone has a say in how it is utilized. You knew that when you accepted the insanely low grazing fees in exchange for following the rules set forth for you to follow. While record high beef prices are the norm now, ordinary ranchers’ profits are tempered with increasingly high pasture rents and feed costs. Sure, we can manage our land as we see fit, but we pay for it, out the nose, while those who pay next to nothing for pasture rent on Federal Land complain to anybody who will listen about how abused they are by the big, bad, Government. Well, I’ve got a solution for you; give up your allotments and practice what you preach. Let some of the young ranchers who would give their eye teeth to have the opportunity to graze their livestock for $1.35/AUM the chance to make it in an ever increasing hard area to break into. But you know what? They won’t do it. Why should they. They are content to have it both ways. Make a mint off the rest of us and get a national audience about how abused they are. They can pack their pistols and rifles around and talk about shooting federal agents, not pay their rent, and get a platform on Hannity. The rightwing media and the militia groups love it because they get noticed. Ratings, don’t you know. I wonder why, if they are so supportive of the Bundy family, rather than strut around threatening to shoot people, why don’t they just pay the $1M fees and fines they owe and defuse the situation? They are certainly making enough money off the family by hawking their troubles on tv and radio to be able to afford it. But that’s not what this is all about for them. It is really about exploiting a ranch family’s misguided sense of right and wrong to make money and push an anti-government agenda. Even though the Feds turned the cows out this weekend, we all know this is not over. When the cameras quit rolling, and the militia men go back to work on Monday, the Bundy family is still going to be in a world of trouble, only now it is not just for refusing to pay their pasture rent. Now they are forever in recorded history of making terroristic threats to law enforcement and public officials. They have backed themselves in a corner of their own making, and we can all hope that they don’t come out shooting, because odds are, it is not going to end pretty for anyone.

TXBO - 2014-04-14 9:36 AM


Yet Cliven most certainly is sucking on the government teet.

 

FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-14 11:07 AM I meant it as a parody of a Conservative talking point, but it's like a joke, it takes all the fun out of it if you have to explain it to people. Unfortunately, the Bundy saga is not a joke. It's not a revolution, a range war, a statement of any kind except that a family has convinced themselves that the Government has done them wrong. They are just like any other deadbeat that doesn't pay their bills and thinks everyone else owes them a living. Anyone who thinks "The American People" give a crap about the Bundys, their grievences, or what happens to them in the long run are watching the wrong news station. People who want their own Utopia to rise out of the ashes of a civil war of rightousness has been sniffing too much ether. Most people are just concerned about their kid's next track meet, hoping the snow storms are over for this year, talking about the last episode of Game of Thrones, and hoping their boss doesn't send their jobs overseas. You people who talk about picking up your rifles and killing people need to seek help. Now.

foundation horse - 2014-04-13 12:02 PM Perhaps I am. However symbolically speaking I am SUPPORTING The U.S. Constitution, States Rights. And the FACT remains that the Feds (BLM) were on State Owned Land enforcing something that The LOCAL County Sherriff was responsible for.....................

smiley - 2014-04-14 11:24 AM Disclaimer: I do not know all the ins and outs of land and how it was deeded or not deeded, from my understanding this has been fed land since its inception. I have not read the briebart article yet, but I will.



Here is the thing – Bundy cattle being re-released to Federal Land, is not a win. In fact, I will bet that this is far, far from over. This man and his cattle have been illegally grazing on Federal land for 20+ years and he is counting on misinformation to make his case. The fact that he thinks that the land is state land versus federal land, shows his ignorance of the very land that has fed his cattle since 1877.



The BLM is ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. This is not a conspiracy, this is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, put into place by President Nixon at work. A completely different conservancy group went to the BLM to protect the turtles. The BLM is - by law - required to do an Environmental Assessment to determine if the two species can co-exist. They have to by law listen to other groups, and have public input. The work was done and Bundy was told to decrease his herd to 150 cattle per year. He did not do this, in fact, he continued to graze 500+ cattle on the land and then thumbed his nose at the fees.



I understand that many ranchers have been put out of business due to these new laws and environmentalists, which begs the question, “Why does your business not have a back-up plan? Why does your ranch depend on the Federal Govt., for your existence?” Isnt’ this exactly what we say to welfare recipients? That Welfare is not a “Career” option? Why are ranchers that MUST rely on Fed lands any different? They all had the opportuninty to homestead the land when it was open for homesteading but instead they bought what they wanted and relied on the kindness of the feds to get it done. If you have to rely on the feds for your existence in business, you've already lost a major battle.



As taken from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada#Before_1861: Over 80% of the state's area is owned by the federal government. The primary reason for this is that homesteads were not permitted in large enough sizes to be viable in the arid conditions that prevail throughout desert Nevada. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze livestock on the adjacent public land, which is useless for agriculture without access to water (this pattern of ranching still prevails).**



Bundy was told his cattle were considered trespass cattle and he didn’t care. He went to court twice in 20 years and lost twice. His cattle were so poorly managed that some went feral and were a danger to others, see the photos attached.



The BLM was the GLO, which was put into place in 1812 and morphed into the BLM. Some have said that this man has some inherent right to graze because he was “there first, before the BLM.” But clearly, unless his family was there in 1812 or even in 1803 when the land was purchased from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, he was not there first. Now, Mexicans and Indians were, but I don’t see this type of support for their plight. So, we're going to use the "there first" argument for this white rancher and his family, but we're not too keen to use the same argument for illegal immigration - that's called hypocrisy in my book.



Someone said to me that he shouldn’t have to pay the fees, as they didn’t exist in 1877. That would be like telling your new landlord that just bought an apartment building as an investment that you were there first, therefore he can never raise your rent. Watch him laugh in your face.



There is another rumor that Harry Reid is all over this. Folks, this started in 1993, this has nothing to do with Reid, other than yes, there are plans for a solar farm as far as I can see - but that is recent. And so what? The BLM is the only govt., entity to MAKE money for the US Treasury, to the tune of 5 billion dollars a year. That’s BILLION with a B. The entire BLM budget per year is ONE billion. They PUT money into our economy and support their own budget - that ironically they have to ASK for from the federal govt., in the budgeting process. The make 5 billion and should be thankful that they get 1 billion to run their show. 



IF they want to build a solar power plant on federal land and are stopped by feral cattle from a rogue rancher who refuses to manage his cattle or remove his cattle, then what are they do to? We are capitalists until it’s the federal govt., that wants to make money FOR US? Well, that sounds a bit hypocritical. We’re all for the ranchers right to make money, even at the cost of others, but not the BLM?



The BLM didn’t stop this round up – in my opinion – because they are wrong, they stopped because of the complete misinformation being put out, because someone MIGHT actually get hurt. This is what they were asked to do and now that they have, they must be “wrong” because they did it. It’s like dealing with a five year old mentality out there right now with militias and “cowboys”. This is making the real ranchers who pay their fees and abide by the rules look horrible. 



BLM History and laws enacted:http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/arcata/headwaters/Falk.html



NEPA and the NEPA register: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do



Environmentalist and activists feel that the BLM hides things from them, and in the past the NEPA documents were kept per state, there is work right now to have ALL state’s NEPA documents online within 2-3 years, all 10,000+ documents. That is what I mean by ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. The BLM folks are made of people like you and me. They do what they have to do because others make laws that make them do it!!



The land they manage is literally the most worthless land the US has to offer, and that is why no one – including Bundy – homesteaded the land when they could. You couldn’t feed a jack rabbit lunch on it if you had to (thanks for that line Jeri). In addition, the Forest Service and other agencies are involved but no one is calling to disband the Forest Service?? Why is that??



I’ve heard the argument that these lands should be “turned over” to the states. If the states wanted that land, it should have happened long before now. I am not educated enough on how it was broken down in the years that followed 1803, but I am going to educate myself on it. The states in some cases don’t even want the land and can’t produce the type of revenue it takes to manage the lands, hence, we have the Forest Service and the BLM.



Educate yourself on federal lands: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us



You may share this status if you like, but I will ask that you do not change the content. I don't need my words or stance (opinion) taken out of context as some love to do on BOTH sides of every issue. 

smiley - 2014-04-14 12:24 PM Disclaimer: I do not know all the ins and outs of land and how it was deeded or not deeded, from my understanding this has been fed land since its inception. I have not read the briebart article yet, but I will.



Here is the thing – Bundy cattle being re-released to Federal Land, is not a win. In fact, I will bet that this is far, far from over. This man and his cattle have been illegally grazing on Federal land for 20+ years and he is counting on misinformation to make his case. The fact that he thinks that the land is state land versus federal land, shows his ignorance of the very land that has fed his cattle since 1877.



The BLM is ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. This is not a conspiracy, this is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, put into place by President Nixon at work. A completely different conservancy group went to the BLM to protect the turtles. The BLM is - by law - required to do an Environmental Assessment to determine if the two species can co-exist. They have to by law listen to other groups, and have public input. The work was done and Bundy was told to decrease his herd to 150 cattle per year. He did not do this, in fact, he continued to graze 500+ cattle on the land and then thumbed his nose at the fees.



I understand that many ranchers have been put out of business due to these new laws and environmentalists, which begs the question, “Why does your business not have a back-up plan? Why does your ranch depend on the Federal Govt., for your existence?” Isnt’ this exactly what we say to welfare recipients? That Welfare is not a “Career” option? Why are ranchers that MUST rely on Fed lands any different? They all had the opportuninty to homestead the land when it was open for homesteading but instead they bought what they wanted and relied on the kindness of the feds to get it done. If you have to rely on the feds for your existence in business, you've already lost a major battle.



As taken from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada#Before_1861: Over 80% of the state's area is owned by the federal government. The primary reason for this is that homesteads were not permitted in large enough sizes to be viable in the arid conditions that prevail throughout desert Nevada. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze livestock on the adjacent public land, which is useless for agriculture without access to water (this pattern of ranching still prevails).**



Bundy was told his cattle were considered trespass cattle and he didn’t care. He went to court twice in 20 years and lost twice. His cattle were so poorly managed that some went feral and were a danger to others, see the photos attached.



The BLM was the GLO, which was put into place in 1812 and morphed into the BLM. Some have said that this man has some inherent right to graze because he was “there first, before the BLM.” But clearly, unless his family was there in 1812 or even in 1803 when the land was purchased from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, he was not there first. Now, Mexicans and Indians were, but I don’t see this type of support for their plight. So, we're going to use the "there first" argument for this white rancher and his family, but we're not too keen to use the same argument for illegal immigration - that's called hypocrisy in my book.



Someone said to me that he shouldn’t have to pay the fees, as they didn’t exist in 1877. That would be like telling your new landlord that just bought an apartment building as an investment that you were there first, therefore he can never raise your rent. Watch him laugh in your face.



There is another rumor that Harry Reid is all over this. Folks, this started in 1993, this has nothing to do with Reid, other than yes, there are plans for a solar farm as far as I can see - but that is recent. And so what? The BLM is the only govt., entity to MAKE money for the US Treasury, to the tune of 5 billion dollars a year. That’s BILLION with a B. The entire BLM budget per year is ONE billion. They PUT money into our economy and support their own budget - that ironically they have to ASK for from the federal govt., in the budgeting process. The make 5 billion and should be thankful that they get 1 billion to run their show. 



IF they want to build a solar power plant on federal land and are stopped by feral cattle from a rogue rancher who refuses to manage his cattle or remove his cattle, then what are they do to? We are capitalists until it’s the federal govt., that wants to make money FOR US? Well, that sounds a bit hypocritical. We’re all for the ranchers right to make money, even at the cost of others, but not the BLM?



The BLM didn’t stop this round up – in my opinion – because they are wrong, they stopped because of the complete misinformation being put out, because someone MIGHT actually get hurt. This is what they were asked to do and now that they have, they must be “wrong” because they did it. It’s like dealing with a five year old mentality out there right now with militias and “cowboys”. This is making the real ranchers who pay their fees and abide by the rules look horrible. 



BLM History and laws enacted:http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/arcata/headwaters/Falk.html



NEPA and the NEPA register: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do



Environmentalist and activists feel that the BLM hides things from them, and in the past the NEPA documents were kept per state, there is work right now to have ALL state’s NEPA documents online within 2-3 years, all 10,000+ documents. That is what I mean by ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. The BLM folks are made of people like you and me. They do what they have to do because others make laws that make them do it!!



The land they manage is literally the most worthless land the US has to offer, and that is why no one – including Bundy – homesteaded the land when they could. You couldn’t feed a jack rabbit lunch on it if you had to (thanks for that line Jeri). In addition, the Forest Service and other agencies are involved but no one is calling to disband the Forest Service?? Why is that??



I’ve heard the argument that these lands should be “turned over” to the states. If the states wanted that land, it should have happened long before now. I am not educated enough on how it was broken down in the years that followed 1803, but I am going to educate myself on it. The states in some cases don’t even want the land and can’t produce the type of revenue it takes to manage the lands, hence, we have the Forest Service and the BLM.



Educate yourself on federal lands: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us



You may share this status if you like, but I will ask that you do not change the content. I don't need my words or stance (opinion) taken out of context as some love to do on BOTH sides of every issue. 

smiley - 2014-04-14 11:24 AM


Disclaimer: I do not know all the ins and outs of land and how it was deeded or not deeded, from my understanding this has been fed land since its inception. I have not read the briebart article yet, but I will.

Here is the thing – Bundy cattle being re-released to Federal Land, is not a win. In fact, I will bet that this is far, far from over. This man and his cattle have been illegally grazing on Federal land for 20+ years and he is counting on misinformation to make his case. The fact that he thinks that the land is state land versus federal land, shows his ignorance of the very land that has fed his cattle since 1877.

The BLM is ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. This is not a conspiracy, this is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, put into place by President Nixon at work. A completely different conservancy group went to the BLM to protect the turtles. The BLM is - by law - required to do an Environmental Assessment to determine if the two species can co-exist. They have to by law listen to other groups, and have public input. The work was done and Bundy was told to decrease his herd to 150 cattle per year. He did not do this, in fact, he continued to graze 500+ cattle on the land and then thumbed his nose at the fees.

I understand that many ranchers have been put out of business due to these new laws and environmentalists, which begs the question, “Why does your business not have a back-up plan? Why does your ranch depend on the Federal Govt., for your existence?” Isnt’ this exactly what we say to welfare recipients? That Welfare is not a “Career” option? Why are ranchers that MUST rely on Fed lands any different? They all had the opportuninty to homestead the land when it was open for homesteading but instead they bought what they wanted and relied on the kindness of the feds to get it done. If you have to rely on the feds for your existence in business, you've already lost a major battle.

As taken from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada#Before_1861: Over 80% of the state's area is owned by the federal government. The primary reason for this is that homesteads were not permitted in large enough sizes to be viable in the arid conditions that prevail throughout desert Nevada. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze livestock on the adjacent public land, which is useless for agriculture without access to water (this pattern of ranching still prevails).**

Bundy was told his cattle were considered trespass cattle and he didn’t care. He went to court twice in 20 years and lost twice. His cattle were so poorly managed that some went feral and were a danger to others, see the photos attached.

The BLM was the GLO, which was put into place in 1812 and morphed into the BLM. Some have said that this man has some inherent right to graze because he was “there first, before the BLM.” But clearly, unless his family was there in 1812 or even in 1803 when the land was purchased from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, he was not there first. Now, Mexicans and Indians were, but I don’t see this type of support for their plight. So, we're going to use the "there first" argument for this white rancher and his family, but we're not too keen to use the same argument for illegal immigration - that's called hypocrisy in my book.

Someone said to me that he shouldn’t have to pay the fees, as they didn’t exist in 1877. That would be like telling your new landlord that just bought an apartment building as an investment that you were there first, therefore he can never raise your rent. Watch him laugh in your face.

There is another rumor that Harry Reid is all over this. Folks, this started in 1993, this has nothing to do with Reid, other than yes, there are plans for a solar farm as far as I can see - but that is recent. And so what? The BLM is the only govt., entity to MAKE money for the US Treasury, to the tune of 5 billion dollars a year. That’s BILLION with a B. The entire BLM budget per year is ONE billion. They PUT money into our economy and support their own budget - that ironically they have to ASK for from the federal govt., in the budgeting process. The make 5 billion and should be thankful that they get 1 billion to run their show. 

IF they want to build a solar power plant on federal land and are stopped by feral cattle from a rogue rancher who refuses to manage his cattle or remove his cattle, then what are they do to? We are capitalists until it’s the federal govt., that wants to make money FOR US? Well, that sounds a bit hypocritical. We’re all for the ranchers right to make money, even at the cost of others, but not the BLM?

The BLM didn’t stop this round up – in my opinion – because they are wrong, they stopped because of the complete misinformation being put out, because someone MIGHT actually get hurt. This is what they were asked to do and now that they have, they must be “wrong” because they did it. It’s like dealing with a five year old mentality out there right now with militias and “cowboys”. This is making the real ranchers who pay their fees and abide by the rules look horrible. 

BLM History and laws enacted:http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/arcata/headwaters/Falk.html

NEPA and the NEPA register: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do

Environmentalist and activists feel that the BLM hides things from them, and in the past the NEPA documents were kept per state, there is work right now to have ALL state’s NEPA documents online within 2-3 years, all 10,000+ documents. That is what I mean by ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. The BLM folks are made of people like you and me. They do what they have to do because others make laws that make them do it!!

The land they manage is literally the most worthless land the US has to offer, and that is why no one – including Bundy – homesteaded the land when they could. You couldn’t feed a jack rabbit lunch on it if you had to (thanks for that line Jeri). In addition, the Forest Service and other agencies are involved but no one is calling to disband the Forest Service?? Why is that??

I’ve heard the argument that these lands should be “turned over” to the states. If the states wanted that land, it should have happened long before now. I am not educated enough on how it was broken down in the years that followed 1803, but I am going to educate myself on it. The states in some cases don’t even want the land and can’t produce the type of revenue it takes to manage the lands, hence, we have the Forest Service and the BLM.

Educate yourself on federal lands: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us

You may share this status if you like, but I will ask that you do not change the content. I don't need my words or stance (opinion) taken out of context as some love to do on BOTH sides of every issue. 

HotbearLVR - 2014-04-13 7:53 PM I have a serious question.  The federal government "owns" about one-third of the entire land mass of the USA.  Why?  Most of this is in the west.  I'm sure many of you have seen those maps that illustrate, in color, the vast amount of land supposedly "owned" by the federal government.  Why does the fed need to own 85% of Nevada, and nearly 50% of California, for example?  Can someone explain this?  Is it because most of this land is "useless" anyway?  If you draw a line from the Montana-North Dakota border all the way down to Mexico, about two-thirds of the land is federally owned.  Everything east of there is probably 5-10% government owned.  

FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-13 5:43 PM For the record, I am not "defending" my personal life. I am proud of who I am and my family. I meant it as a "teaching" moment. Every private rancher I know would jump at the chance to own a federal or state grazing permit. The better terms are 1/50th of the rent we all pay if we want more pasture. Young people can't get a start anymore because the rent it too high, land prices are through the roof and a bred cow costs $2000+. If people's anti-government sentiment is so high that they will side with a family who has obviously gone around the bend, they need to rethink things. Grazing permits that come up for lease are few and very far between and priced way out of reach of a common "rancher". The government, by letting him use that pasture for free, is robbing all of us of revenue that goes to benefit everyone. Why don't they show the people on tv who pay their rent and think these people are cheats? Because "TV" is not interested in the real story, it's not sensational enough. They want the ratings killer. It's why people watch bull riding I think, for the wrecks.

carlos - 2014-04-14 10:59 AM  I am not taking any one side over another as far as BHW members go.... I however very very rarely trust the government.  I absolutely 100% believe Bundy when he says he paid for years to the BLM on what their agreement was supposed to be and stopped after the BLM did NOT hold to their end of the agreement.  There is mile after mile of red tape to contend with when dealing with any government entity.  It kind of sounds like ranchers that don't have a goverment grazing lease are a little jealous of the ranchers that do.  That's life as life is just flat unfair.  To be honest I don't care about any of that.  I have a big problem with government not holding to what they were formed to do.  HAPPENS IN ALL GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAMS.  How about this tortoise refuge that our beloved government has been funding... that no longer can fund,  so those tortoises will just be euthanized.  I know that is trivial but that's such a waste and that is SO TYPICAL of a government run program.  So when BLM comes in and bullies a citizen I have a problem with that.  

smiley - 2014-04-14 11:24 AM

Disclaimer: I do not know all the ins and outs of land and how it was deeded or not deeded, from my understanding this has been fed land since its inception. I have not read the briebart article yet, but I will.

Here is the thing – Bundy cattle being re-released to Federal Land, is not a win. In fact, I will bet that this is far, far from over. This man and his cattle have been illegally grazing on Federal land for 20+ years and he is counting on misinformation to make his case. The fact that he thinks that the land is state land versus federal land, shows his ignorance of the very land that has fed his cattle since 1877.

The BLM is ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. This is not a conspiracy, this is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, put into place by President Nixon at work. A completely different conservancy group went to the BLM to protect the turtles. The BLM is - by law - required to do an Environmental Assessment to determine if the two species can co-exist. They have to by law listen to other groups, and have public input. The work was done and Bundy was told to decrease his herd to 150 cattle per year. He did not do this, in fact, he continued to graze 500+ cattle on the land and then thumbed his nose at the fees.

I understand that many ranchers have been put out of business due to these new laws and environmentalists, which begs the question, “Why does your business not have a back-up plan? Why does your ranch depend on the Federal Govt., for your existence?” Isnt’ this exactly what we say to welfare recipients? That Welfare is not a “Career” option? Why are ranchers that MUST rely on Fed lands any different? They all had the opportuninty to homestead the land when it was open for homesteading but instead they bought what they wanted and relied on the kindness of the feds to get it done. If you have to rely on the feds for your existence in business, you've already lost a major battle.

As taken from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada#Before_1861: Over 80% of the state's area is owned by the federal government. The primary reason for this is that homesteads were not permitted in large enough sizes to be viable in the arid conditions that prevail throughout desert Nevada. Instead, early settlers would homestead land surrounding a water source, and then graze livestock on the adjacent public land, which is useless for agriculture without access to water (this pattern of ranching still prevails).**

Bundy was told his cattle were considered trespass cattle and he didn’t care. He went to court twice in 20 years and lost twice. His cattle were so poorly managed that some went feral and were a danger to others, see the photos attached.

The BLM was the GLO, which was put into place in 1812 and morphed into the BLM. Some have said that this man has some inherent right to graze because he was “there first, before the BLM.” But clearly, unless his family was there in 1812 or even in 1803 when the land was purchased from the French in the Louisiana Purchase, he was not there first. Now, Mexicans and Indians were, but I don’t see this type of support for their plight. So, we're going to use the "there first" argument for this white rancher and his family, but we're not too keen to use the same argument for illegal immigration - that's called hypocrisy in my book.

Someone said to me that he shouldn’t have to pay the fees, as they didn’t exist in 1877. That would be like telling your new landlord that just bought an apartment building as an investment that you were there first, therefore he can never raise your rent. Watch him laugh in your face.

There is another rumor that Harry Reid is all over this. Folks, this started in 1993, this has nothing to do with Reid, other than yes, there are plans for a solar farm as far as I can see - but that is recent. And so what? The BLM is the only govt., entity to MAKE money for the US Treasury, to the tune of 5 billion dollars a year. That’s BILLION with a B. The entire BLM budget per year is ONE billion. They PUT money into our economy and support their own budget - that ironically they have to ASK for from the federal govt., in the budgeting process. The make 5 billion and should be thankful that they get 1 billion to run their show. 

IF they want to build a solar power plant on federal land and are stopped by feral cattle from a rogue rancher who refuses to manage his cattle or remove his cattle, then what are they do to? We are capitalists until it’s the federal govt., that wants to make money FOR US? Well, that sounds a bit hypocritical. We’re all for the ranchers right to make money, even at the cost of others, but not the BLM?

The BLM didn’t stop this round up – in my opinion – because they are wrong, they stopped because of the complete misinformation being put out, because someone MIGHT actually get hurt. This is what they were asked to do and now that they have, they must be “wrong” because they did it. It’s like dealing with a five year old mentality out there right now with militias and “cowboys”. This is making the real ranchers who pay their fees and abide by the rules look horrible. 

BLM History and laws enacted:http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/arcata/headwaters/Falk.html

NEPA and the NEPA register: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do

Environmentalist and activists feel that the BLM hides things from them, and in the past the NEPA documents were kept per state, there is work right now to have ALL state’s NEPA documents online within 2-3 years, all 10,000+ documents. That is what I mean by ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don’t. The BLM folks are made of people like you and me. They do what they have to do because others make laws that make them do it!!

The land they manage is literally the most worthless land the US has to offer, and that is why no one – including Bundy – homesteaded the land when they could. You couldn’t feed a jack rabbit lunch on it if you had to. In addition, the Forest Service and other agencies are involved but no one is calling to disband the Forest Service?? Why is that??

I’ve heard the argument that these lands should be “turned over” to the states. If the states wanted that land, it should have happened long before now. I am not educated enough on how it was broken down in the years that followed 1803, but I am going to educate myself on it. The states in some cases don’t even want the land and can’t produce the type of revenue it takes to manage the lands, hence, we have the Forest Service and the BLM.

Educate yourself on federal lands: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us

 

smiley - 2014-04-14 11:39 AM




Hotbear, please read my post above with links. 

rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 1:12 PM

OK, here's my 2 cents worth. I have read A LOT of the history of both the Bundy family lease and the ownership of the land by the Fed. I don't need to rehash it over again, as many of you have already read it too. For those of you that have stated that this is a bad situation on either side, well, that's the best assesment of any. I live here in Nevada and this family is part of our rodeo family too. I don't claim to have the perfect answer to resolve this situation for either side. What I do know is what this whole thing means to me as an American. I am weary of an overbearing hypocritical government. This is not about tortoises, it's a show of power. Here recently, the Fed euthanized more than 100 tortoises due to lack of funding to manage them. But yet they had over $3 million to do this round up? Yes, Mr. Bundy has been in and out of the courts for over 20 years trying to win their battle. Now, I wasn't in court to hear testimony of either side, so, I claim no knowledge of that part of the story. What I believe about it though is that Mr Bundy took the stand that many ranchers either could not or would not. The stand being that the BLM is not using consistent, common sense practices when it comes to our public lands. This happened when the Fed was shut down and denying citizens entrance to OUR national parks. (whole other argument) The BLM again mismanaged the situation with the cattle. They ran the s**t out of the cow calf pairs in 90 degree temps with helicopters. How did that help the precious tortoise? Just made the cattle run wild, trampling everything in their path. The cattle were literally run to death. Then they purposefully chased cow calf pairs through the river. Many calves drowned because of stress and being too young to cross. Many more calves were separated from their mothers and just left to fend on their own. Then BLM took in heavy equipment and destroyed the spring fed water sources. I get the fact that the courts may have been on the side of the BLM but I have 2 questions: Why did they wait so long to do this?  And if they are so interested in recouping the money they are owed, why not use better tactics to gather cattle? Killing them means no financial return. I feel it is time the BLM be run by the public and have their positions be voted on. These are public lands and should be run by the public.

rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 1:12 PM

OK, here's my 2 cents worth. I have read A LOT of the history of both the Bundy family lease and the ownership of the land by the Fed. I don't need to rehash it over again, as many of you have already read it too. For those of you that have stated that this is a bad situation on either side, well, that's the best assesment of any. I live here in Nevada and this family is part of our rodeo family too. I don't claim to have the perfect answer to resolve this situation for either side. What I do know is what this whole thing means to me as an American. I am weary of an overbearing hypocritical government. This is not about tortoises, it's a show of power. Here recently, the Fed euthanized more than 100 tortoises due to lack of funding to manage them. But yet they had over $3 million to do this round up? Yes, Mr. Bundy has been in and out of the courts for over 20 years trying to win their battle. Now, I wasn't in court to hear testimony of either side, so, I claim no knowledge of that part of the story. What I believe about it though is that Mr Bundy took the stand that many ranchers either could not or would not. The stand being that the BLM is not using consistent, common sense practices when it comes to our public lands. This happened when the Fed was shut down and denying citizens entrance to OUR national parks. (whole other argument) The BLM again mismanaged the situation with the cattle. They ran the s**t out of the cow calf pairs in 90 degree temps with helicopters. How did that help the precious tortoise? Just made the cattle run wild, trampling everything in their path. The cattle were literally run to death. Then they purposefully chased cow calf pairs through the river. Many calves drowned because of stress and being too young to cross. Many more calves were separated from their mothers and just left to fend on their own. Then BLM took in heavy equipment and destroyed the spring fed water sources. I get the fact that the courts may have been on the side of the BLM but I have 2 questions: Why did they wait so long to do this?  And if they are so interested in recouping the money they are owed, why not use better tactics to gather cattle? Killing them means no financial return. I feel it is time the BLM be run by the public and have their positions be voted on. These are public lands and should be run by the public.

foundation horse - 2014-04-14 1:18 PM And The IRS Audit has yet to commence.

foundation horse - 2014-04-14 11:18 AM And The IRS Audit has yet to commence.

rodeorun68 - 2014-04-14 1:21 PM


Oh and the IRS......FH you are so right. I had best keep my mouth shut on that subject because I will probably be the next person on the terrorist list lol