Modded Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 223 Posts

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,049 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Nevada Rancher in Tense Standoff With Federal Government - WZTV FOX 17 - Top Stories

What do you guys think?

Personally, I think the Feds should piss off. He is doing no harm and the animals need to graze. :yes

They keep running farmers out of business and food prices are going to keep rising. :facepalm:

The BLM has been taking over waaaaayy too much land and designating it off limits for any reason they can find as well. What they're doing feels less like protecting land and animals and more like an excuse for a Govt land takeover to keep people from having it or using it.

What do the areas of land have for resources that the Fed/BLM are taking over? Natural gas, oil, farm land to produce food, etc.

Is a turtle that is not really endangered really the reason they're doing this stuff?

Image below is located here: http://wilderness.org/blm-lands



Maybe this would explain why they're taking over so much rural and public lands, making it off limits in any way possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
The more that comes to light about this, the worse it makes me feel about our government.

The setting up of "1st Amendment zones" where the first amendment doesn't apply is simply appalling. There is no such thing, nor is there a precedent for an anti first amendment zone without there also being a declaration of martial law. The arming of troops to stop cows from grazing on land they've been grazing for over 200 years is also appalling, especially with the flimsy excuse of some sort of tortoise that is supposedly endangered.

Add to it that the BLS just happens to make billions of dollars by selling their "protected" land to companies that do fracking and other resource gathering just stinks to high heaven.

Finally, this is a prime example of what the founders put the 2nd amendment in place for. There have been several examples of the successful and legal use of our second amendment rights against the established government inside our own borders, look them up if you don't believe me, but to allow them to shut down freedom of speech and set up snipers and other armed troops to bully a farmer who has used the land and won a prior lawsuit saying that the PUBLIC land is able to be used for grazing as it is PUBLIC is down right disgusting. This can easily turn into Ruby Ridge or Waco, and it is NOT good.
 

·
Zip's half naked helper
Joined
·
11,663 Posts
They need to just leave this guy and all others like him alone. All for what? Some turtle can eat? Did anyone tell the turtle?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
They need to just leave this guy and all others like him alone. All for what? Some turtle can eat? Did anyone tell the turtle?
See the post above you, the turtles are not the issue, never have been. It's like everything else, all boils down to money. Fracking if the above report is valid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,592 Posts
What am i missing here?

* Government owns land
* Government changes rules for land it already owns
* Man does not pay grazing fees for his cows to graze on land he does not own.
* Man refuses to respond to court orders about his illegal use of land that he does not own.
* After 20 years of illegal use and $1M owed, the government orders the seizure of his assets.

I guess i miss the point here. He's not a law abiding citizen as some are calling him. He's a man who hadn't paid to use the land and is trespassing to use it. He's just as much of a law abiding citizen as a poacher. If he owned the land our paid his fees to use the land then it's a different story. If i stop paying all my taxes, I bet the government comes and takes my assets as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
What am i missing here?

* Government owns land
* Government changes rules for land it already owns
* Man does not pay grazing fees for his cows to graze on land he does not own.
* Man refuses to respond to court orders about his illegal use of land that he does not own.
* After 20 years of illegal use and $1M owed, the government orders the seizure of his assets.

I guess i miss the point here. He's not a law abiding citizen as some are calling him. He's a man who hadn't paid to use the land and is trespassing to use it. He's just as much of a law abiding citizen as a poacher. If he owned the land our paid his fees to use the land then it's a different story. If i stop paying all my taxes, I bet the government comes and takes my assets as well.
Local government owns land, not federal. Federal may own a lot of NV, but not that particular plot apparently. I may be wrong, but that's what I've gathered. The land is designated for PUBLIC use and the ranger won a prior court hearing about this vs. the Feds saying that he CAN graze his cows there. That's my understanding of it. Even if he were in debt to the federal government, sending out helicopters, teams to impound the cows, etc are far more costly and extreme than needed in this case when they can simply seize his assets instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,592 Posts
Local government owns land, not federal. Federal may own a lot of NV, but not that particular plot apparently. I may be wrong, but that's what I've gathered. The land is designated for PUBLIC use and the ranger won a prior court hearing about this vs. the Feds saying that he CAN graze his cows there. That's my understanding of it. Even if he were in debt to the federal government, sending out helicopters, teams to impound the cows, etc are far more costly and extreme than needed in this case when they can simply seize his assets instead.
I've read 3 articles and the land was taken under Federal control sometime around the 1930s (I'll have to look up the articles again to find the date). Then in 1993 the government changed their rules and that's when he stopped paying his fees. Then the government has given him multiple court orders to stop trespassing with his cows.

Just because it's public land does not mean you have acres to do whatever you want on it. He doesn't have the right to graze his cattle there and he has been doing it illegally for 20 years and ignoring the government demands to stop.

---------- Post added at 03:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

the ranger won a prior court hearing about this vs. the Feds saying that he CAN graze his cows there. That's my understanding of it.
Sorry, I was on my phone for the previous response and provide actual facts is hard on the phone. I will say that I think your understanding is wrong. According to court documents, the ranger (Bundy) LOST two cases with the courts (one in 1998 and one last July). In 1998 the court told Bundy to stop letting his cows graze on the land. Last July they told him the same thing and that he had 45 days to comply or they would remove them. Here's the court document (it's a PDF, so it might take some time to load if you're on a mobile device). If you don't want to read all 5 pages, just read the last page for the ruling.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2012cv00804/87613/35/0.pdf?1373464715

I see it as he's not really much more than a squatter who refuses to leave the land.
 

·
The Dude Abides
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
What am i missing here?

* Government owns land
* Government changes rules for land it already owns
* Man does not pay grazing fees for his cows to graze on land he does not own.
* Man refuses to respond to court orders about his illegal use of land that he does not own.
* After 20 years of illegal use and $1M owed, the government orders the seizure of his assets.

I guess i miss the point here. He's not a law abiding citizen as some are calling him. He's a man who hadn't paid to use the land and is trespassing to use it. He's just as much of a law abiding citizen as a poacher. If he owned the land our paid his fees to use the land then it's a different story. If i stop paying all my taxes, I bet the government comes and takes my assets as well.
Bundy said he would pay the local government grazing fees but not the BLM.

BLM is just one of many federal agencies that continually overstep their authority in an attempt to crush those who oppose them. Who opposes the feds? Anyone who believes in freedom and liberty. Also, the BLM has created a "First Amendment Area" that limits where people can view, photograph and film what they are trying to do. As far as I know all 50 states and all US territories would be protected by The First Amendment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,592 Posts
Bundy said he would pay the local government grazing fees but not the BLM.

BLM is just one of many federal agencies that continually overstep their authority in an attempt to crush those who oppose them. Who opposes the feds? Anyone who believes in freedom and liberty. Also, the BLM has created a "First Amendment Area" that limits where people can view, photograph and film what they are trying to do. As far as I know all 50 states and all US territories would be protected by The First Amendment.
Yes, they did create a protest area and I think that was wrong. But that area was also removed today and the only current standing regulation is that the protestors must stay out of the way of rounding up the cattle.

Also yes, Bundy did say he would pay the local government. But why would you pay fees based on land use to someone that's NOT the owner? The land is owned by the Federal government as stated by the courts.....twice. So paying it to the local government it's paying it to it's rightful owners. If I pay my federal taxes to the state government guess what the federal government will do. They will reposes my assets and throw me in jail for not paying them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
This is the type of outrage that makes my blood boil. I wish people would actually do some research rather than reacting to a sensationalized headline and story with some knee jerk response when they don't have the actual facts only what some "reporter" told them.

Kudos Sonic for your level headed assessment of the situation. While I think it would be wrong to kick anyone off a land that they have the right to use, in this case it seems that is not the case yet people immediately jump to the conclusion that the government just going in and unlawfully taking peoples rights away from them. That's not to say that they don't do that but it seems that many feel that ANYTHING the government does is a power grab.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
My apologies for the misinformation.

I still find the government response highly excessive, along with the "freedom of speech area".

I'm a believer of "two wrongs don't make a right", but hard to side with the government here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
My apologies for the misinformation.

I still find the government response highly excessive, along with the "freedom of speech area".

I'm a believer of "two wrongs don't make a right", but hard to side with the government here.
I agree with you. The whole "freedom of speech area" is wrong and I will stand lockstep with you in decrying the government for doing that but after you've repeatedly given this person court order after court order for 20 years obviously he doesn't give a **** so you have to be more forceful in enforcing the order that is being ignored. Was it overkill? Probably but after 20 years of non-compliance I would be pretty pissed too.

John
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,049 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Supposedly this turtle is not endangered anymore, so this is all for nothing if that is true.

Why the big show of force by the Fed's at the BLM for a petty issue like this?

If he owed money for unpaid grazing fees, why not just take him to court and garnish his earnings or something? Why screw with his cattle and cause all that drama out there?

This whole things is a huge overreach by the Feds and the BLM imho. :yes

Let's look at this from some other angles...

Where is this show of force for border security? :shrug:

See video:

He sounds lie he's so stressed he's losing his voice or something...

Authorities Seize Nevada Rancher's 134 Cattle in Land Use Standoff - Fox Nation

---------- Post added at 11:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 PM ----------

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Supposedly this turtle is not endangered anymore, so this is all for nothing if that is true.

Why the big show of force by the Fed's at the BLM for a petty issue like this?

If he owed money for unpaid grazing fees, why not just take him to court and garnish his earnings or something? Why screw with his cattle and cause all that drama out there?

This whole things is a huge overreach by the Feds and the BLM imho. :yes

Let's look at this from some other angles...

Where is this show of force for border security? :shrug:

See video:

He sounds lie he's so stressed he's losing his voice or something...

Authorities Seize Nevada Rancher's 134 Cattle in Land Use Standoff - Fox Nation

---------- Post added at 11:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 PM ----------

Megyn Kelly discusses Cliven Bundy's Ranch 4/10/2014 - YouTube
I would agree that the whole "turtle" thing is a subterfuge for an underlying agenda that being getting this idiot to stop BREAKING THE LAW! Isn't that what many of my conservative brothers get all up in arms about when that same action pertains to immigration? Isn't the argument they are breaking the law so they should be deported regardless of their situation in Mexico or whatever country they've come from what many on the right hold as truth?

This person has been been ordered by the courts several times to not let his cattle graze on those lands yet he has willfully ignored the law. That makes him just as much a criminal as "those border hopping wetbacks" are.

Not sure why the big show from the BLM so I won't comment on that but as far as this person being a victim of government overreach? I think it's the other way around. The government has been soft on him for the last 20 years. They should have jailed him the first time he decided to defy the court order.

John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,592 Posts
I still find the government response highly excessive, along with the "freedom of speech area".
I'm in full agreement with the "freedom of speech area" being wrong and I do not agree with that. But also, gatherings of large amounts of people on public land is not as simple as people think it is. When the Tea Party started up, before it went off the deep end, I organized some rallies in our city. It's not as simple as choose some public land and get a bunch of people to show up. There are multiple permits that you have to obtain in order to legally gather and have your protest/rally. Yes, I had the police come and ask for these permits because other people who didn't like the rally called the police on it.

Point being, it's never been as simple as you can protest with a bunch of people anywhere you want and I'm sure the people didn't get the proper permits (then again, their state might not have the same rules as mine). Either way, I think it's wrong to require permission of that sort.

Why the big show of force by the Fed's at the BLM for a petty issue like this?
Because in the past when they tried to kick him off he showed aggression. Guess what, in this situation he's shown aggression again. They have a responsibility to protect the contractors who are simply doing their job.

If he owed money for unpaid grazing fees, why not just take him to court and garnish his earnings or something? Why screw with his cattle and cause all that drama out there?
The answer can be as simple as because they don't want his cattle on the land. I let one other person hunt on my land and no one else. Should other people be able to hunt on my land and simply pay me the fee the one guy does? No, it's my land and I should be able to deny whatever I want from happening on it. That's all that's happening here.

There are 900 cattle on the land being rounded up and he only owns 500 of them. Other people own the 400 other cattle, why are they not bitching like this guy?

I haven't researched on the turtle thing because it's really a moot point. The guy is basically an illegal squatter on government land and they're trying to remove him. It's not his land and he has no rights to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
I'm in full agreement with the "freedom of speech area" being wrong and I do not agree with that. But also, gatherings of large amounts of people on public land is not as simple as people think it is. When the Tea Party started up, before it went off the deep end, I organized some rallies in our city. It's not as simple as choose some public land and get a bunch of people to show up. There are multiple permits that you have to obtain in order to legally gather and have your protest/rally. Yes, I had the police come and ask for these permits because other people who didn't like the rally called the police on it.

Point being, it's never been as simple as you can protest with a bunch of people anywhere you want and I'm sure the people didn't get the proper permits (then again, their state might not have the same rules as mine). Either way, I think it's wrong to require permission of that sort.
I sure wish there were more people in the Tea Party that thought like you and not like the morons that are in control of it today. While I may not agree with everything you believe, I can't help but respect the well thought out rationale that you put out.

Because in the past when they tried to kick him off he showed aggression. Guess what, in this situation he's shown aggression again. They have a responsibility to protect the contractors who are simply doing their job.

The answer can be as simple as because they don't want his cattle on the land. I let one other person hunt on my land and no one else. Should other people be able to hunt on my land and simply pay me the fee the one guy does? No, it's my land and I should be able to deny whatever I want from happening on it. That's all that's happening here.
Exactly but because the headline looks so juicy, the alarmist jump on it without looking a little deeper as to what the real issue is.

There are 900 cattle on the land being rounded up and he only owns 500 of them. Other people own the 400 other cattle, why are they not bitching like this guy?
Good question....anyone?

I haven't researched on the turtle thing because it's really a moot point. The guy is basically an illegal squatter on government land and they're trying to remove him. It's not his land and he has no rights to it.
You pretty much distilled it down to it's essence. He doesn't have a right to be there. Has been told and court ordered many times over yet defies both then gets angry when someone physically comes to move him and his cattle off the land in accordance to the court orders that have been issued to him.

John
 
1 - 20 of 223 Posts
Top