Nevada Cattle Ranch

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

Anyway, my heartburn with this is that the guy was more than willing to just quietly not pay the grazing fees for 20 years. During this time if it really bothered him why didn’t he take this case up to court? Why didn’t he take legal action against the government instead of just being quiet about it? It was only when they actually took action against him that he made a big stink. He should have been up in arms well before this.

james
[/quote]

This is along the lines of what I was thinking.

He is the only Rancher still in the area, according to reports.

He has been allowing his cattle to graze on pubic land that requires a grazing fee for a few decades without paying.

Now BLM is apparently using methods I don’t agree with to remove Bundy’s cattle, but this isn’t Bundy’s land

This is my thoughts on this. Tell me what I’m missing.

Bundy has a ranch but his cattle have to go beyond his land to graze in order to survive at their current herd size. His cattle herd is larger than his personal resources can support. He is suppose to be paying a Tax on letting his cattle graze on this land. He hasn’t paid this Tax in years resulting in over a $1,000,000,000 balance. BLM has taken control over this public land (unfair? maybe, but so is life) and are now removing cattle that are on this land out of compliance in a way that is probably detrimental to the survival of Bundy’s herd at the current size.

I would pick up a rifle and stand with a brother in the face of aggression, but if it was similar to my understanding of this situation I would tell my brother he should probably get his shit off that lawn.

22

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

Anyway, my heartburn with this is that the guy was more than willing to just quietly not pay the grazing fees for 20 years. During this time if it really bothered him why didn’t he take this case up to court? Why didn’t he take legal action against the government instead of just being quiet about it? It was only when they actually took action against him that he made a big stink. He should have been up in arms well before this.

james
[/quote]

This is along the lines of what I was thinking.

He is the only Rancher still in the area, according to reports.

He has been allowing his cattle to graze on pubic land that requires a grazing fee for a few decades without paying.

Now BLM is apparently using methods I don’t agree with to remove Bundy’s cattle, but this isn’t Bundy’s land

This is my thoughts on this. Tell me what I’m missing.

Bundy has a ranch but his cattle have to go beyond his land to graze in order to survive at their current herd size. His cattle herd is larger than his personal resources can support. He is suppose to be paying a Tax on letting his cattle graze on this land. He hasn’t paid this Tax in years resulting in over a $1,000,000,000 balance. BLM has taken control over this public land (unfair? maybe, but so is life) and are now removing cattle that are on this land out of compliance in a way that is probably detrimental to the survival of Bundy’s herd at the current size.

I would pick up a rifle and stand with a brother in the face of aggression, but if it was similar to my understanding of this situation I would tell my brother he should probably get his shit off that lawn.
[/quote]

I think it goes a little deeper. They’ve been there a long time.

My understanding: It is/was state held property. The guy paid his fees to the state. The fed stepped in, claimed ownership of the land, re-districted where the cattle could go in the name of protecting a turtle and started charging fees. When that went down, he stopped paying.

I think there is some debate about the total of back taxes due too. And the court cases have been going on a long long time if I understand correctly. He supposedly agrees to pay the fees to the state, just not the fed.

23

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

Anyway, my heartburn with this is that the guy was more than willing to just quietly not pay the grazing fees for 20 years. During this time if it really bothered him why didn’t he take this case up to court? Why didn’t he take legal action against the government instead of just being quiet about it? It was only when they actually took action against him that he made a big stink. He should have been up in arms well before this.

james
[/quote]

This is along the lines of what I was thinking.

He is the only Rancher still in the area, according to reports.

He has been allowing his cattle to graze on pubic land that requires a grazing fee for a few decades without paying.

Now BLM is apparently using methods I don’t agree with to remove Bundy’s cattle, but this isn’t Bundy’s land

This is my thoughts on this. Tell me what I’m missing.

Bundy has a ranch but his cattle have to go beyond his land to graze in order to survive at their current herd size. His cattle herd is larger than his personal resources can support. He is suppose to be paying a Tax on letting his cattle graze on this land. He hasn’t paid this Tax in years resulting in over a $1,000,000,000 balance. BLM has taken control over this public land (unfair? maybe, but so is life) and are now removing cattle that are on this land out of compliance in a way that is probably detrimental to the survival of Bundy’s herd at the current size.

I would pick up a rifle and stand with a brother in the face of aggression, but if it was similar to my understanding of this situation I would tell my brother he should probably get his shit off that lawn.
[/quote]

I think it goes a little deeper. They’ve been there a long time.

My understanding: It is/was state held property. The guy paid his fees to the state. The fed stepped in, claimed ownership of the land, re-districted where the cattle could go in the name of protecting a turtle and started charging fees. When that went down, he stopped paying.

I think there is some debate about the total of back taxes due too. And the court cases have been going on a long long time if I understand correctly. He supposedly agrees to pay the fees to the state, just not the fed.[/quote]

That is my understanding as well. I just don’t see the State of Nevada disputing this Fed’s claim to the land. So, I am assuming that the State and Fed’s worked out a deal on the land. So Bundy is pretty much saying “yeah, I’ll pay the state fees, but fuck you Feds I don’t recognize your claim to this land and I wont pay you” It is not his land and never was his land. He and his family have been using land that does not belong to them for decades for their gain?

If Nevada and Fed’s were in dispute over this land I would understand Bundy’s stand, but from my understanding of this, Bundy is just saying “Fuck you Feds”. Maybe I am slow, but I don’t see his fight and from what I understand of the situation I wouldn’t stand and fight with him.

24

[quote]mbdix wrote:

That is my understanding as well. I just don’t see the State of Nevada disputing this Fed’s claim to the land. So, I am assuming that the State and Fed’s worked out a deal on the land. So Bundy is pretty much saying “yeah, I’ll pay the state fees, but fuck you Feds I don’t recognize your claim to this land and I wont pay you” It is not his land and never was his land. He and his family have been using land that does not belong to them for decades for their gain?

If Nevada and Fed’s were in dispute over this land I would understand Bundy’s stand, but from my understanding of this, Bundy is just saying “Fuck you Feds”. Maybe I am slow, but I don’t see his fight and from what I understand of the situation I wouldn’t stand and fight with him.
[/quote]

So, as long as the Fed and State government are in agreement, he as a citizen shouldn’t stand up to a law he feels is unjust?

Would this rationale apply to things other than government land grabs?

25

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The militias are a fucking joke. A bunch of grown men who are playing GI Joe to distract themselves from their shallow intellects and inconsequential existences. [/quote]

lol @ how much of a self righteous, indignant, judgmental elitist you are.

It must be so hard for you to walk among us simpletons every day.

27

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

That is my understanding as well. I just don’t see the State of Nevada disputing this Fed’s claim to the land. So, I am assuming that the State and Fed’s worked out a deal on the land. So Bundy is pretty much saying “yeah, I’ll pay the state fees, but fuck you Feds I don’t recognize your claim to this land and I wont pay you” It is not his land and never was his land. He and his family have been using land that does not belong to them for decades for their gain?

If Nevada and Fed’s were in dispute over this land I would understand Bundy’s stand, but from my understanding of this, Bundy is just saying “Fuck you Feds”. Maybe I am slow, but I don’t see his fight and from what I understand of the situation I wouldn’t stand and fight with him.
[/quote]

So, as long as the Fed and State government are in agreement, he as a citizen shouldn’t stand up to a law he feels is unjust?

Would this rationale apply to things other than government land grabs?[/quote]

I will only give my opinion on a case by case scenario. I will not give a blanket opinion on all laws passed by elected state and government officials. Kinda like picking your battles.

This battle, I don’t see Bundy’s fight. Like I said, maybe I am missing it, I will accept being wrong if someone can point out what I am missing on this situation. (I actually would almost like to be shown why I should be outraged and side with Bundy)

As I see this, Bundy should pay the fees or get his cattle off that land.

28

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

That is my understanding as well. I just don’t see the State of Nevada disputing this Fed’s claim to the land. So, I am assuming that the State and Fed’s worked out a deal on the land. So Bundy is pretty much saying “yeah, I’ll pay the state fees, but fuck you Feds I don’t recognize your claim to this land and I wont pay you” It is not his land and never was his land. He and his family have been using land that does not belong to them for decades for their gain?

If Nevada and Fed’s were in dispute over this land I would understand Bundy’s stand, but from my understanding of this, Bundy is just saying “Fuck you Feds”. Maybe I am slow, but I don’t see his fight and from what I understand of the situation I wouldn’t stand and fight with him.
[/quote]

So, as long as the Fed and State government are in agreement, he as a citizen shouldn’t stand up to a law he feels is unjust?

Would this rationale apply to things other than government land grabs?[/quote]

I will only give my opinion on a case by case scenario. I will not give a blanket opinion on all laws passed by elected state and government officials. Kinda like picking your battles.

This battle, I don’t see Bundy’s fight. Like I said, maybe I am missing it, I will accept being wrong if someone can point out what I am missing on this situation. (I actually would almost like to be shown why I should be outraged and side with Bundy)

As I see this, Bundy should pay the fees or get his cattle off that land.

[/quote]

Fair enough, however the timeline for the land is important IMO.

Who owned it first, and how did it end up federal property largely will influence (at least my) opinion here.

29

I think there are two issues here. The first is whether or not the fee is just. I don’t know enough about it to speak to that. The next is whether or not the rancher acted appropriately. Unless I’m missing something the rancher knew he was breaking the law for 20 years. He also didn’t agree with the fee for at least that long. But he did nothing about it. I would have a different opinion about this if he had been paying the fee and the BLM came in like this or if he had a lawsuit filed and the BLM came in and did this.

james

30

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
I think there are two issues here. The first is whether or not the fee is just. I don’t know enough about it to speak to that. The next is whether or not the rancher acted appropriately. Unless I’m missing something the rancher knew he was breaking the law for 20 years. He also didn’t agree with the fee for at least that long. But he did nothing about it. I would have a different opinion about this if he had been paying the fee and the BLM came in like this or if he had a lawsuit filed and the BLM came in and did this.

james[/quote]

Refusing to pay the fee is doing something. It is objecting to what you see as unjust. It is protest.

Similar to jury nullification, refusing to find someone clearly guilty of an unjust law guilty, is doing something by “not paying the fee”.

31

I disagree that simply refusing to pay the fee is doing something. It’s just being passive in the hopes that the problem goes away.

james

32

Here is one take on the issue…

Don’t exactly agree with the author, but I do see the potential of this turning into another Ruby Ridge or Waco. If that were to happen, I believe that a “critical mass” of Americans would respond in a manner less than peaceful.

33

What is a “critical mass”? I don’t think that the majority of American’s are going to give up what they have simply out of support for this guy. Especially when this isn’t really cut and dry.

Let’s be clear here too, letting your cattle graze on the land for 140 years is not at all the same as actually owning the land. If I’m hearing this all correctly his ancestors didn’t actually own any of this land at any time. There is no such thing as squatters rights when it comes to land. Now if I’m wrong here please correct me.

Note, according to this article he’s been fighting it for years.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/08/armed-fed-agents-and-snipers-the-decades-long-battle-between-the-govt-and-a-nevada-rancher-that-has-finally-reached-breaking-point/

And here it says that he acknowledges that he owes money but refuses to pay the feds and will only pay the state:

I’m really mixed about it now having read more. It sounds as if he didn’t get the answer he wanted to in court so he just kept refusing to pay. Frankly he probably doesn’t have the money to pay now anyway.

I don’ know enough about federal lands though and about how that all works. Anyone with a legal background that can lend some more info?

james

34

If you are looking for a fight, look elsewhere. I simply do not believe you have enough information to support your opinions at this point.

Here is another good article. Bundy Ranch, the Federal Government, and the Nevada Water Tipping Point - American Thinker

A “critical mass” has never been a majority. It is more like a catalyst, just enough to set off an explosion.

35

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

Let’s be clear here too, letting your cattle graze on the land for 140 years is not at all the same as actually owning the land. If I’m hearing this all correctly his ancestors didn’t actually own any of this land at any time. There is no such thing as squatters rights when it comes to land. Now if I’m wrong here please correct me.

[/quote]

Well, and maybe this isn’t the way it has gone down, but if you have a contract with the state for 120 years, and everything is great. Then suddenly the Fed comes in and says “no” on the basis of a turtle, not human rights, not civil rights, no laws what-so-ever broken, is it “just”? Is it right?

Because if ^ is the way it went down… I kind of have to side with him on the “f-u I’m not going to pay you” thing.

36

Yeah, but if you don’t live up to your side of the contract then who’s fault is that? It sounds like he wasn’t living up to his side of the contract.

james

37

[quote]JEATON wrote:
If you are looking for a fight, look elsewhere. I simply do not believe you have enough information to support your opinions at this point.

Here is another good article. Bundy Ranch, the Federal Government, and the Nevada Water Tipping Point - American Thinker

A “critical mass” has never been a majority. It is more like a catalyst, just enough to set off an explosion. [/quote]

How am I looking for a fight?

I just am not sure about the whole “critical mass” thing.

james

38

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Yeah, but if you don’t live up to your side of the contract then who’s fault is that? It sounds like he wasn’t living up to his side of the contract.

james[/quote]

He never had a contract with the Feds, just the state. He lived up to the state contract. Then the Feds confiscated the land and here we are.

DISCLAIMER: my post is obviously made from a position of “we don’t really know the whole story yet”.

39

it doesn’t even take absolute power to corrupt absolutely.

http://www.infowars.com/county-commissioner-says-bundy-supporters-better-have-funeral-plans/

40

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The militias are a fucking joke. A bunch of grown men who are playing GI Joe to distract themselves from their shallow intellects and inconsequential existences. [/quote]

lol @ how much of a self righteous, indignant, judgmental elitist you are.

It must be so hard for you to walk among us simpletons every day. [/quote]

holy fucking poo , how big of a hypocrite are you :slight_smile: Even if he was and I am not saying he is . That would be like the sun calling the moon stellar :slight_smile: