|
|
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
   
| smiley - 2014-04-17 1:32 PM Do you have a link to these court orders? No, I'm not advocating for anyone to defy court orders, but I don't think they need a court order to make changes to things that are still on federal property after the owner has had a chance to remove them. Like 20 years.
If I go to a rental house and evict someone and they leave stuff behind, do you think I'm going to take it to them?? Get a storage unit for it?? No, I'm gonna get a roll off and throw it away.
The appeal order is attached to that breitbart.com article.
I can't seem to find the ruling from the first court order. If anyone has that, I'd like to read it. | |
| | |
 Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
       
|  | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
      
| jbhoot - 2014-04-17 12:33 PM smiley - 2014-04-17 1:08 PM jbhoot - 2014-04-17 11:02 AM The BLM is most certainly a police force. After a long history of convoluted jurisdiction Congress granted police authority in 1978. And yes everyone of the Agents that have been pictured dressed as paramilitary has a badge on from the BLM. You really should read up on the history of the present day BLM it is a prime example of how messed up the Federal Government has become. And If you had read the court orders issued in this case you would see NO such authority exists to destroy or dispose of Bundy's property. So it seems that in your mind it is ok for the agents of the BLM violate the court orders but not Bundy. Your stance on this makes zero sense to me.
The BLM has limited agents, and they were the ones you saw in tan shirts and slacks - yes armed. As I said, which one of us would go into the territory they do and not be armed? They cleaned out homemade bombs in the colorado mountains not too long ago in a random tent of some yahoos camping illegally in the forest.
In the videos I saw, the floppy hat, camo, kevlar hatted were NOT BLM. I would venture to stay they are the Nevada National Guard or similar - as I have been around the Guard/military. If you can prove otherwise, I'm always willing to read. Please You really have no understanding of the laws and jurisdictions you are commenting on. All you have to do is look it up and read. And No they are not part of any military. The national Guard requires an action from the Gov. of Nev. NO such action was taken. And it is very clear in every picture I have seen that all are carrying a badge from the BLM. Most have it on their belts. And no I am not going to do your home work you look it up. Latter I am off to work.
This video shows BLM agents from many different areas - including Calif and Oregon to my understanding: http://rt.com/usa/nevada-ranch-armed-feds-520/
This photo shows Forest Service agents/BLM also from various offices:
http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/21WIREa-Bundy-Fed-Standoff-April-12-2014-Copyright-GMN-2.jpg
This is clearly a swat team from Las Vegas:
http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/21WIREb-Bundy-Fed-Standoff-April-12-2014-Copyright-GMN.jpg
This shows people in kevalar helmets with POLICE on their backs, these are NOT BLM. I don't know who they are, but the ones toward the back of the pickup in the tan - ARE BLM:
http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/21WIREg-Bundy-Fed-Standoff-April-12-2014-Copyright-GMN.jpg
THESE are not BLM, if you know who they are, by all means, let us all know - they are NOT BLM: http://static.libsyn.com/p/assets/5/f/8/5/5f85d4f7fcef1d47/21WIREi-Bundy-Fed-Standoff-April-12-2014-Copyright-GMN.jpg
Here is a shot with ONE BLM agent among?? WHO?? You clearly must know, so do inform us: http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/21WIRE-11-BLM-Bundy-April-12-2014-GMN-Copyright.jpg
THis looks like the sheriff to me and one of bundy's sons packing a pistol: http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/21WIRE-16-BLM-Bundy-April-12-14-GMN-Copyright.jpg
| |
| | |
Grammar Expert
      
| RidenFly - 2014-04-17 12:53 PM 
Okay, this is funny! | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
      
| Please show me where there are BLM with POLICE on them?? This is a link to their RANGER opportunities. And next is their law enforcemnt page.
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Law_Enforcement/law_enforcement.Par.26988.File.dat/LErecruit100907.pdf
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/law_enforcement.html | |
| | |
 Swiffer PIcker Upper
Posts: 4015
  Location: Four Corners Colorado | What do you guys think about what this guy is saying?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eooqqf26gsE | |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
     Location: I can see the end of the world from here! |
This is very well said. I'm in good company!!! (making it a 'live link') https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eooqqf26gsE | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
      
|
He hasn't said anything that you all haven't already said. Again, it's the states fight, not bundy's fight. I'm not sure what he wants us to reconsider - the end of the conversation is that he feds own the land and have owned it since long before bundy. Reconsider what??
He has brought a lot to the forefront so that is a silver lining. Now, if I had my druthers, we'd move on to real cases that have a chance to be changed - Texas - Indian vs. Park - and let's get all those militia and horses and flags to THOSE fights. Fights that have a chance of winning, fights that are clearly wrong.
Let the states fight for their land. Then the states can fight the environmentalists. I do think the BLM being one agency has made it easier for the activists to affect more than one state at a time through mimimal effort. | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 2036
  Location: Montana | foundation horse - 2014-04-17 11:08 AM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 12:55 PM This was posted on Facebook. I thought it was pretty interesting.
It was posted by Tyler Shilling
So, Spencer and I got arrested (it wasn't detainment ) on Thursday. Steven was seconds away from being tased. Since then, I have been asked 'Why would you want t...o protect a tax-evading rancher?' by a number of people, my wife included. The reporting on the situation has been so poor that it's almost impossible to piece together the facts to determine why this was a fight worth fighting. Sorry it's so long; I'm just tired of simplistic arguments that boil down to 'he's a tax cheat' for the haters and vague states' rights arguments from supporters. Anyway, I was initially outraged by the BLM's (Bureau of Land Management ) attempt to restrict protests to 20' x 40' "Free Speech Zones". What a joke. This is America. And so I did a little research on the situation and we headed down to the ranch. While there, I talked with the Bundys, and started to get a better picture of the larger issues at stake. The remaining details were filled in during conversations that I had with two BLM officers: an extended one while I was in chains and locked up in a cage in the back of a truck, and the other at church with a friend that supported the Bundys who has also been working as a BLM employee for the past several years as a range management agent. To the best of my knowledge and after many hours of research and discussion, these are the relevant facts and why they matter:
- 1880s: Bundy family begins ranching near Gold Butte, Nevada
- 1946: Bureau of Land Management is formed. "The BLM's stated mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations"
- 1973: The Endangered Species Act is passed by congress. The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect species and also "the ecosystems upon which they depend." After the listing of a species, 'critical habitat' must be provided, 'regardless of economic impact'. Of the 2000 species listed, only 15 have recovered--a ~1% success rate. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, fewer than 10% of listed species are improving at all. Of the 15 species that have recovered, only 2 of them had a designated 'critical habitat'. There have been very few thorough, quantitative studies on the effectiveness of the law.
-1993: The Gold Butte area is designated a critical habitat for the desert tortoise due to pressure from environmental groups. As a result of this designation, the BLM tells over 50 ranching operations in the area to reduce herd size by 50% or more. The Bundy ranch is told to reduce from 500 to 150 cattle, effectively a 70% reduction in income. THIS is the point where Bundy quit paying his range fees. Nobody can afford that kind of pay cut. I'd quit paying my fees as well if said organization was openly trying to shut me down.
-1998: The ranchers in the area are 'bought out' by the BLM based on the number of cattle they had and all ranching is forbidden. As a result of complying with the BLM instructions from 1993, 50 of the 51 ranchers had fewer than 50% of the cattle they previously owned. Convenient. Cliven Bundy's herd is still growing.
-1998-2013: The BLM brings several court cases against Cliven Bundy. The federal court rules in favor of the federal agency against the Bundys.
-2014: The BLM initiates the cattle roundup costing over $3 million dollars and using BLM agents from as far as Alaska as well as federal agents in full tactical gear with machine guns.
Aside from the 'first amendment zones' that were taken down on Thursday as a result of the Nevada governer commenting on how ridiculous they were, my main concern and reason for protesting is the amount of power that a federal agency (the BLM) has with very little congressional oversight and no elected officials to be accountable for their actions. And, when this powerful, unaccountable agency is openly influenced by environmental lobbyists they have a tendency to steamroll hard working folks who just don't have the time or experience to play the media/politics game. When the Gold Butte area was ruled a 'critical habitat' for the desert tortoise in 1993, that decision directly impacted over 50 ranching operations, several hundred people, and numerous small communities in the area.
Around the same time, in 1998 (the same year that all ranging was completely banned in the Gold Butte area), Harry Reid and John Ensign were sponsoring legislation to remove restrictions on the sale of certain federal wilderness lands in Nevada. In 2002 there was more legislation by Reid called "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002", that allowed his billionaire donor friend Harvey Whittemore to build Coyote Springs, a real estate development on 10,000 acres of desert tortoise sanctuary. Pretty sketchy stuff--read the wikipedia article on Harvey Whittemore. And, these aren't conspiracy theories--they're fully documented by newspaper articles and public record. So all I'm saying is that the little guy gets run over while the corrupt politicians and businessmen are in bed together. It's not fair and it's not right. Cliven Bundy was completely legal until the BLM demanded that he cut his income by 70%. I've been to the Bundy homestead, and I can tell you that he's definitely not living large--a pay cut like that is essentially a financial death sentence. As I said before, I know that if I were in his shoes I definitely wouldn't pay anything to an agency that was putting me out of business, essentially forcing me to move from a homestead my family had settled almost 140 years before.
Interestingly, just last year the BLM euthanized up to 1000 desert tortoises being kept in a preserve due to a 'lack of funding'. Apparently the 'regardless of economic impact' clause applies to everyone else except the government themselves. Once again, the little guy is expected to play by the rules and the government is able to act however they see fit. Oh, and the current director of the BLM was Harry Reid's senior advisor for many years.
The second major concern revolves around states' rights and the fact that land in the east is owned almost exclusively by the state/privately, while in the West the majority of the land is federally owned. This is the argument the Bundys have focused almost exclusively on. States are promised equal treatment under the constitution. Historically when a state was approved for statehood, the federal government would turn over all land within the state's boundaries with the exception of some small plots of land for military bases or national parks. Yet, when the western states tried to do the same, the US government twisted their arms and forced them to relinquish control of huge swathes of land. 85% of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government. How is that equal treatment? How is that constitutional? The states tried to protest this in the 'range wars' of the 1970s and 1980s, but (as expected), the federal courts ruled in favor of the federal government. Are we seeing a trend here? There is no system of checks-and-balances for the federal government. And that's what we all need to protest and stand up against. I'll be arrested every day of the week if it helps keep an overreaching, corrupt federal government in check. Oh, and in case you didn't know, yesterday the BLM backed down and left town. This is America.
Thank you Bandit for posting this. I was already familiar with the majority of the facts presented in this. And I completely agree with Post!
Your welcome. It is called "civil disobedience" folks. Remember the civil rights movement? Wonder where Obama would be right now without it. | |
| | |
 
|
Yep... You certainly are in good company of people who break the law.
In the 1997 case, Clifford Gardner was charged with trespass by the U.S. Forest Service for letting cattle from his Dawley Creek Ranch roam part of the Humboldt National Forest that had been ravaged by a wildfire. Although Gardner and his wife, Bertha, had a permit to graze there, the Forest Service had reseeded the burn area and closed it to grazing for two years.
Gardner violated the order by sending his cattle in and was fined for trespassing. He was sued by the Forest Service after refusing to pay the fine, arguing that the federal government didn't have title to the land so he couldn't be in trespass.
The 9th Circuit, however, held that the United States, not Nevada, owns public lands in the state and that they have power to regulate grazing under the Constitution's property clause. | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 2036
  Location: Montana | smiley - 2014-04-17 11:46 AM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 11:55 AM This was posted on Facebook. I thought it was pretty interesting.
It was posted by Tyler Shilling
So, Spencer and I got arrested (it wasn't detainment ) on Thursday. Steven was seconds away from being tased. Since then, I have been asked 'Why would you want t...o protect a tax-evading rancher?' by a number of people, my wife included. The reporting on the situation has been so poor that it's almost impossible to piece together the facts to determine why this was a fight worth fighting. Sorry it's so long; I'm just tired of simplistic arguments that boil down to 'he's a tax cheat' for the haters and vague states' rights arguments from supporters. Anyway, I was initially outraged by the BLM's (Bureau of Land Management ) attempt to restrict protests to 20' x 40' "Free Speech Zones". What a joke. This is America. And so I did a little research on the situation and we headed down to the ranch. While there, I talked with the Bundys, and started to get a better picture of the larger issues at stake. The remaining details were filled in during conversations that I had with two BLM officers: an extended one while I was in chains and locked up in a cage in the back of a truck, and the other at church with a friend that supported the Bundys who has also been working as a BLM employee for the past several years as a range management agent. To the best of my knowledge and after many hours of research and discussion, these are the relevant facts and why they matter:
- 1880s: Bundy family begins ranching near Gold Butte, Nevada
- 1946: Bureau of Land Management is formed. "The BLM's stated mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations"
- 1973: The Endangered Species Act is passed by congress. The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect species and also "the ecosystems upon which they depend." After the listing of a species, 'critical habitat' must be provided, 'regardless of economic impact'. Of the 2000 species listed, only 15 have recovered--a ~1% success rate. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, fewer than 10% of listed species are improving at all. Of the 15 species that have recovered, only 2 of them had a designated 'critical habitat'. There have been very few thorough, quantitative studies on the effectiveness of the law.
-1993: The Gold Butte area is designated a critical habitat for the desert tortoise due to pressure from environmental groups. As a result of this designation, the BLM tells over 50 ranching operations in the area to reduce herd size by 50% or more. The Bundy ranch is told to reduce from 500 to 150 cattle, effectively a 70% reduction in income. THIS is the point where Bundy quit paying his range fees. Nobody can afford that kind of pay cut. I'd quit paying my fees as well if said organization was openly trying to shut me down.
-1998: The ranchers in the area are 'bought out' by the BLM based on the number of cattle they had and all ranching is forbidden. As a result of complying with the BLM instructions from 1993, 50 of the 51 ranchers had fewer than 50% of the cattle they previously owned. Convenient. Cliven Bundy's herd is still growing.
-1998-2013: The BLM brings several court cases against Cliven Bundy. The federal court rules in favor of the federal agency against the Bundys.
-2014: The BLM initiates the cattle roundup costing over $3 million dollars and using BLM agents from as far as Alaska as well as federal agents in full tactical gear with machine guns.
Aside from the 'first amendment zones' that were taken down on Thursday as a result of the Nevada governer commenting on how ridiculous they were, my main concern and reason for protesting is the amount of power that a federal agency (the BLM) has with very little congressional oversight and no elected officials to be accountable for their actions. And, when this powerful, unaccountable agency is openly influenced by environmental lobbyists they have a tendency to steamroll hard working folks who just don't have the time or experience to play the media/politics game. When the Gold Butte area was ruled a 'critical habitat' for the desert tortoise in 1993, that decision directly impacted over 50 ranching operations, several hundred people, and numerous small communities in the area.
Around the same time, in 1998 (the same year that all ranging was completely banned in the Gold Butte area), Harry Reid and John Ensign were sponsoring legislation to remove restrictions on the sale of certain federal wilderness lands in Nevada. In 2002 there was more legislation by Reid called "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002", that allowed his billionaire donor friend Harvey Whittemore to build Coyote Springs, a real estate development on 10,000 acres of desert tortoise sanctuary. Pretty sketchy stuff--read the wikipedia article on Harvey Whittemore. And, these aren't conspiracy theories--they're fully documented by newspaper articles and public record. So all I'm saying is that the little guy gets run over while the corrupt politicians and businessmen are in bed together. It's not fair and it's not right. Cliven Bundy was completely legal until the BLM demanded that he cut his income by 70%. I've been to the Bundy homestead, and I can tell you that he's definitely not living large--a pay cut like that is essentially a financial death sentence. As I said before, I know that if I were in his shoes I definitely wouldn't pay anything to an agency that was putting me out of business, essentially forcing me to move from a homestead my family had settled almost 140 years before.
Interestingly, just last year the BLM euthanized up to 1000 desert tortoises being kept in a preserve due to a 'lack of funding'. Apparently the 'regardless of economic impact' clause applies to everyone else except the government themselves. Once again, the little guy is expected to play by the rules and the government is able to act however they see fit. Oh, and the current director of the BLM was Harry Reid's senior advisor for many years.
The second major concern revolves around states' rights and the fact that land in the east is owned almost exclusively by the state/privately, while in the West the majority of the land is federally owned. This is the argument the Bundys have focused almost exclusively on. States are promised equal treatment under the constitution. Historically when a state was approved for statehood, the federal government would turn over all land within the state's boundaries with the exception of some small plots of land for military bases or national parks. Yet, when the western states tried to do the same, the US government twisted their arms and forced them to relinquish control of huge swathes of land. 85% of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government. How is that equal treatment? How is that constitutional? The states tried to protest this in the 'range wars' of the 1970s and 1980s, but (as expected), the federal courts ruled in favor of the federal government. Are we seeing a trend here? There is no system of checks-and-balances for the federal government. And that's what we all need to protest and stand up against. I'll be arrested every day of the week if it helps keep an overreaching, corrupt federal government in check. Oh, and in case you didn't know, yesterday the BLM backed down and left town. This is America.
The BLM was not "Formed" then, the BLM was the GLO and IT was formed in 1812.
So, if he starts off with wrong facts, then he is simply parroting what he heard from Bundy and family. And that is hardly the truth.
If you stop paying fees, you no longer get to use the land - your reasons why are for the courts to decide, which three times he lost. You can't simply stop paying fees.
What ranchers were "bought out" by the BLM? I would love to see a title transfer via an assessor's office where it said "John Smith" and then changed to "BLM" - maybe I'm wrong - it happens, but I don't think the BLM bought out anyone, rather I believe they excercised rights over land they already own (states ownership being a whole other ball of wax).
This stupid round up did not cost $3 mill, I believe that is what they have set aside for it, as that is what it cost in the 90s for the Hage ranch. To date, I've read in several places they have expended less than a million = STILL a ridiculous amount of money.
The BLM does have oversight by an elected official - the PRESIDENT. You want hte BLM gone, vote in a president that wants the same.
I've already argued the cut in numbers of cattle - the BLM is not your enemy the environmentalists are. The kicker in this "article" is where he says that Bundy wasn't illegal until . . . . So, I didn't steal that car until I needed one - I'm still gonna get arrested.
The Turtles that were put down - from what I read - was due to the turtle conservancy going out of business and they dumped the turtles on the BLM and they put down sick and old ones.
That's where I stopped. This may very well get the states off their *sses to do something or it might not, but it's not Bundy's fight. He is illegal and has been for some time and even right up to the point the helicopter got there, he had a choice to get his own cattle off the land.
This is NOT like the case in texas where deeded land, provable deeded land, is I believe trying to be taken away. WHy don't we find those cases and discuss their merits. Why don't we discuss the court cases already in the works for states to try to get the land from the feds? Why don't we find the rez story about turning their land into a national park?
I'm over bundy, he's a POS who has had his 15 minutes of fame. I don't care why you think they are raising money, to me it's tacky and wrong.
yes, this is America and you think when you fill out a job application and it asks if you've ever been arrested they give a hot chit what your misguided reasons for being arrested were??
He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946." | |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
   
| bscanchaser - 2014-04-17 3:29 PM Yep... You certainly are in good company of people who break the law.
In the 1997 case, Clifford Gardner was charged with trespass by the U.S. Forest Service for letting cattle from his Dawley Creek Ranch roam part of the Humboldt National Forest that had been ravaged by a wildfire. Although Gardner and his wife, Bertha, had a permit to graze there, the Forest Service had reseeded the burn area and closed it to grazing for two years.
Gardner violated the order by sending his cattle in and was fined for trespassing. He was sued by the Forest Service after refusing to pay the fine, arguing that the federal government didn't have title to the land so he couldn't be in trespass.
The 9th Circuit, however, held that the United States, not Nevada, owns public lands in the state and that they have power to regulate grazing under the Constitution's property clause.
I love how these guys recognize the federal authority to grant them a lease but don't recognize their authority to manage their lands. | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
      
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 2:35 PM smiley - 2014-04-17 11:46 AM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 11:55 AM This was posted on Facebook. I thought it was pretty interesting.
It was posted by Tyler Shilling
So, Spencer and I got arrested (it wasn't detainment ) on Thursday. Steven was seconds away from being tased. Since then, I have been asked 'Why would you want t...o protect a tax-evading rancher?' by a number of people, my wife included. The reporting on the situation has been so poor that it's almost impossible to piece together the facts to determine why this was a fight worth fighting. Sorry it's so long; I'm just tired of simplistic arguments that boil down to 'he's a tax cheat' for the haters and vague states' rights arguments from supporters. Anyway, I was initially outraged by the BLM's (Bureau of Land Management ) attempt to restrict protests to 20' x 40' "Free Speech Zones". What a joke. This is America. And so I did a little research on the situation and we headed down to the ranch. While there, I talked with the Bundys, and started to get a better picture of the larger issues at stake. The remaining details were filled in during conversations that I had with two BLM officers: an extended one while I was in chains and locked up in a cage in the back of a truck, and the other at church with a friend that supported the Bundys who has also been working as a BLM employee for the past several years as a range management agent. To the best of my knowledge and after many hours of research and discussion, these are the relevant facts and why they matter:
- 1880s: Bundy family begins ranching near Gold Butte, Nevada
- 1946: Bureau of Land Management is formed. "The BLM's stated mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations"
- 1973: The Endangered Species Act is passed by congress. The stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to protect species and also "the ecosystems upon which they depend." After the listing of a species, 'critical habitat' must be provided, 'regardless of economic impact'. Of the 2000 species listed, only 15 have recovered--a ~1% success rate. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, fewer than 10% of listed species are improving at all. Of the 15 species that have recovered, only 2 of them had a designated 'critical habitat'. There have been very few thorough, quantitative studies on the effectiveness of the law.
-1993: The Gold Butte area is designated a critical habitat for the desert tortoise due to pressure from environmental groups. As a result of this designation, the BLM tells over 50 ranching operations in the area to reduce herd size by 50% or more. The Bundy ranch is told to reduce from 500 to 150 cattle, effectively a 70% reduction in income. THIS is the point where Bundy quit paying his range fees. Nobody can afford that kind of pay cut. I'd quit paying my fees as well if said organization was openly trying to shut me down.
-1998: The ranchers in the area are 'bought out' by the BLM based on the number of cattle they had and all ranching is forbidden. As a result of complying with the BLM instructions from 1993, 50 of the 51 ranchers had fewer than 50% of the cattle they previously owned. Convenient. Cliven Bundy's herd is still growing.
-1998-2013: The BLM brings several court cases against Cliven Bundy. The federal court rules in favor of the federal agency against the Bundys.
-2014: The BLM initiates the cattle roundup costing over $3 million dollars and using BLM agents from as far as Alaska as well as federal agents in full tactical gear with machine guns.
Aside from the 'first amendment zones' that were taken down on Thursday as a result of the Nevada governer commenting on how ridiculous they were, my main concern and reason for protesting is the amount of power that a federal agency (the BLM) has with very little congressional oversight and no elected officials to be accountable for their actions. And, when this powerful, unaccountable agency is openly influenced by environmental lobbyists they have a tendency to steamroll hard working folks who just don't have the time or experience to play the media/politics game. When the Gold Butte area was ruled a 'critical habitat' for the desert tortoise in 1993, that decision directly impacted over 50 ranching operations, several hundred people, and numerous small communities in the area.
Around the same time, in 1998 (the same year that all ranging was completely banned in the Gold Butte area), Harry Reid and John Ensign were sponsoring legislation to remove restrictions on the sale of certain federal wilderness lands in Nevada. In 2002 there was more legislation by Reid called "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002", that allowed his billionaire donor friend Harvey Whittemore to build Coyote Springs, a real estate development on 10,000 acres of desert tortoise sanctuary. Pretty sketchy stuff--read the wikipedia article on Harvey Whittemore. And, these aren't conspiracy theories--they're fully documented by newspaper articles and public record. So all I'm saying is that the little guy gets run over while the corrupt politicians and businessmen are in bed together. It's not fair and it's not right. Cliven Bundy was completely legal until the BLM demanded that he cut his income by 70%. I've been to the Bundy homestead, and I can tell you that he's definitely not living large--a pay cut like that is essentially a financial death sentence. As I said before, I know that if I were in his shoes I definitely wouldn't pay anything to an agency that was putting me out of business, essentially forcing me to move from a homestead my family had settled almost 140 years before.
Interestingly, just last year the BLM euthanized up to 1000 desert tortoises being kept in a preserve due to a 'lack of funding'. Apparently the 'regardless of economic impact' clause applies to everyone else except the government themselves. Once again, the little guy is expected to play by the rules and the government is able to act however they see fit. Oh, and the current director of the BLM was Harry Reid's senior advisor for many years.
The second major concern revolves around states' rights and the fact that land in the east is owned almost exclusively by the state/privately, while in the West the majority of the land is federally owned. This is the argument the Bundys have focused almost exclusively on. States are promised equal treatment under the constitution. Historically when a state was approved for statehood, the federal government would turn over all land within the state's boundaries with the exception of some small plots of land for military bases or national parks. Yet, when the western states tried to do the same, the US government twisted their arms and forced them to relinquish control of huge swathes of land. 85% of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government. How is that equal treatment? How is that constitutional? The states tried to protest this in the 'range wars' of the 1970s and 1980s, but (as expected), the federal courts ruled in favor of the federal government. Are we seeing a trend here? There is no system of checks-and-balances for the federal government. And that's what we all need to protest and stand up against. I'll be arrested every day of the week if it helps keep an overreaching, corrupt federal government in check. Oh, and in case you didn't know, yesterday the BLM backed down and left town. This is America.
The BLM was not "Formed" then, the BLM was the GLO and IT was formed in 1812.
So, if he starts off with wrong facts, then he is simply parroting what he heard from Bundy and family. And that is hardly the truth.
If you stop paying fees, you no longer get to use the land - your reasons why are for the courts to decide, which three times he lost. You can't simply stop paying fees.
What ranchers were "bought out" by the BLM? I would love to see a title transfer via an assessor's office where it said "John Smith" and then changed to "BLM" - maybe I'm wrong - it happens, but I don't think the BLM bought out anyone, rather I believe they excercised rights over land they already own (states ownership being a whole other ball of wax).
This stupid round up did not cost $3 mill, I believe that is what they have set aside for it, as that is what it cost in the 90s for the Hage ranch. To date, I've read in several places they have expended less than a million = STILL a ridiculous amount of money.
The BLM does have oversight by an elected official - the PRESIDENT. You want hte BLM gone, vote in a president that wants the same.
I've already argued the cut in numbers of cattle - the BLM is not your enemy the environmentalists are. The kicker in this "article" is where he says that Bundy wasn't illegal until . . . . So, I didn't steal that car until I needed one - I'm still gonna get arrested.
The Turtles that were put down - from what I read - was due to the turtle conservancy going out of business and they dumped the turtles on the BLM and they put down sick and old ones.
That's where I stopped. This may very well get the states off their *sses to do something or it might not, but it's not Bundy's fight. He is illegal and has been for some time and even right up to the point the helicopter got there, he had a choice to get his own cattle off the land.
This is NOT like the case in texas where deeded land, provable deeded land, is I believe trying to be taken away. WHy don't we find those cases and discuss their merits. Why don't we discuss the court cases already in the works for states to try to get the land from the feds? Why don't we find the rez story about turning their land into a national park?
I'm over bundy, he's a POS who has had his 15 minutes of fame. I don't care why you think they are raising money, to me it's tacky and wrong.
yes, this is America and you think when you fill out a job application and it asks if you've ever been arrested they give a hot chit what your misguided reasons for being arrested were??
He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Yes, the GLO morphed into the BLM, they combined a few things and renamed it. The GLO is still the BLM or vice versa.
http://www.blm.gov/es/st/en/prog/glo.html | |
| | |
Grammar Expert
      
| TXBO - 2014-04-17 2:44 PM bscanchaser - 2014-04-17 3:29 PM Yep... You certainly are in good company of people who break the law.
In the 1997 case, Clifford Gardner was charged with trespass by the U.S. Forest Service for letting cattle from his Dawley Creek Ranch roam part of the Humboldt National Forest that had been ravaged by a wildfire. Although Gardner and his wife, Bertha, had a permit to graze there, the Forest Service had reseeded the burn area and closed it to grazing for two years.
Gardner violated the order by sending his cattle in and was fined for trespassing. He was sued by the Forest Service after refusing to pay the fine, arguing that the federal government didn't have title to the land so he couldn't be in trespass.
The 9th Circuit, however, held that the United States, not Nevada, owns public lands in the state and that they have power to regulate grazing under the Constitution's property clause. I love how these guys recognize the federal authority to grant them a lease but don't recognize their authority to manage their lands.
Good way to put a lot of this selective understanding going on.......... | |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
   
| Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true. | |
| | |
  Semper Fi
             Location: North Texas | Remember in Legal Scholarly Circles and Constitutional Circles, The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court is commonly known/referred to as "The Ninth Circus".
I cannot restate this enough! The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has the unenviable record for holding the most Court Decisions overturned actually reversed by The Supreme Court.
This is documented fact. Anyone cause to dispute this Fact, feel free to check out Google. | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 2036
  Location: Montana | TXBO - 2014-04-17 1:54 PM Bandit94 - 2014-04-17 3:35 PM He isn't wrong, you are. Go to the BLM website and it states; "Grazing service merges with General land office to create the BLM in 1946."
Technically, you're correct. However the timeline is meant to mislead people to believe that the Bundy's were ranching before there was federal oversight of the land. That's just not true.
I agree with you.... I know that I am right, they took two gov entites threw in some more rules and regulations and created the BLM. It isn't the same entity ( this comment is for Smiley). They are being civilly disobedient but that is how we; 1) became a country, 2) women gained the right to vote, 3) civil rights movement...etc. The examles go on and on. | |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
   
| foundation horse - 2014-04-17 4:00 PM Remember in Legal Scholarly Circles and Constitutional Circles, The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court is commonly known/referred to as "The Ninth Circus". I cannot restate this enough! The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has the unenviable record for holding the most Court Decisions overturned actually reversed by The Supreme Court. This is documented fact. Anyone cause to dispute this Fact, feel free to check out Google.
I have no need to verify your scholarly research, FH.
However, off the top of my head, I can name one case from the 9th District that wasn't overturned by the Supreme Court....... US vs Bundy. | |
| | |
 I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
      Location: Online | So I guess the federal government can keep changing the rules to suit their current needs without the people's input or consent and we just have to roll over and take it. Ok.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."
| |
| | |
 I'm not opinionated
Posts: 4597
      Location: Online | Since the edit button is missing....
Last I checked, the Constitution of the United States of America predates Bundy's settling of Nevada as well and the BLM.  | |
| |
| |