|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 12, 2014 23:57:47 GMT -5
Sad that one guy refuses to pay his grazing fees on federal land when 1,600 other cattle farmers do... and get's away with it for 20 years... and has support... I don't think the show of force by the government goon squads is necessary either. Only because the rancher had threatened to use force against them first... they had the right to protect themselves... 200 armed government agents... 30,000 armed militants...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 12, 2014 23:59:23 GMT -5
I don't think the show of force by the government goon squads is necessary either. So true and yet the feds are backing off. Of course was this event a wag the dog example? What is Obama doing that he does not want us to know about? They're backing off... but they'll be back...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 13, 2014 0:04:46 GMT -5
This whole thing doesn't make much sense on a number of different levels.
If this is federal land, then why doesn't the government have some sort of judgment or lien for the unpaid fees? Once they've established that they're legally entitled to payment, they can seize bank accounts, intercept any tax refunds the guy has coming, take any receipts from sales of cattle, sell the guy's ranch at auction, etc. It hardly seems necessary to send armed rangers in to take cattle.
Mr. Bundy, on the other hand, isn't claiming to actually own the land, yet he claims the federal government doesn't, either. He would appear to be on rather shaky legal ground in that respect, yet, as a citizen, he would have been perfectly within his rights to file suit against the Bureau of Land Management. They've tried numerous times to work with him... he has defied more than one court order over several years... they planned to confiscate only the cattle grazing illegally on BLM land... which they have had title to since 1848... rather than seize his assets and/or property...
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Apr 13, 2014 7:26:04 GMT -5
True. We initially followed the thinking of folk such as Thomas Paine and used wealth (private property) as a basis for funding local governments. Amongst the original states there was no federal assets to thwart the citizens. But... empire building and bureaucracy prevailed in the western lands. Witness Alaska! (our good friend Moses enjoys life up there secure in the tributes extracted from the honest producers who must beg for the "privilege" to toil on the Kings Land. This particular parcel of land in the Gold Butte area is part of the Lake Meade National Recreation Area... and as such is subject to federal control... much of the drainage area for Lake Meade in in that area simply because it needs to be managed properly... this cattle owner signed a lease and was allowed to graze his cattle there on federal land for a fee... (which went to the LMNRA)... he agreed to pay it, then reneged... something should have been done long ago... you or I couldn't refuse to honor the terms of a lease we had signed for 20 years... neither should he...
Very good. As we all know the tenant must comply with the conditions set by the landlord. Is it fair to question the very basic concept of sovereign as landlord? Some of us find the notion odious. Many do not. Even us lowly citizens do have the right to petition the landlord and even bring suit. We spent a millennia escaping from feudalism and achieving the right to own property. Is Nevada just a very large feudal reserve?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2014 11:15:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Apr 13, 2014 11:52:28 GMT -5
Interesting, I am not sure why solar, cows, and tortoises can't all live in the same area. I also read a theory that water rights were also behind this.
|
|
|
Post by The New Sheriff of Rock Ridge on Apr 13, 2014 14:03:08 GMT -5
I'm sure the reason the government backed down this time was to prevent 30.000 morons from hurting themselves and others. If this guy has refused to pay his fees for 20 years, then the majority of America should be against him. Most of us don't own a ranch with more than 1000 cows, but we all pay our taxes anyway, and those fees he owes are for the costs used to maintain the federal land, which is there for all of us, not just Bundy and his cows.
I hope when the feds come back, they take all of his property from him too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2014 14:12:54 GMT -5
I'm sure the reason the government backed down this time was to prevent 30.000 morons from hurting themselves and others. If this guy has refused to pay his fees for 20 years, then the majority of America should be against him. Most of us don't own a ranch with more than 1000 cows, but we all pay our taxes anyway, and those fees he owes are for the costs used to maintain the federal land, which is there for all of us, not just Bundy and his cows. I hope when the feds come back, they take all of his property from him too. I doubt the government has a problem with citizens getting hurt. They backed down because many Americans sympathize with this rancher, seeing the U.S. government as heavy handed when it comes to things like land use rights. The number of protesters would increase exponentially if this were to continue. The congresscritters would like to keep their cushy jobs in office.
|
|
|
Post by The New Sheriff of Rock Ridge on Apr 13, 2014 15:50:03 GMT -5
I have to pay $20 per day to visit that land, and I have. I don't think his cows should get to graze there for free.
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Apr 13, 2014 15:55:33 GMT -5
So the rancher can welch on the $1,000,000 he owes the Federal Government in grazing fees, but some want to complain and hand wring about the poor, taxes and entitlements???
The Sun Spot Lives On Sanitarium for the Schizophrenic Sufferers.
Uhmmm Kay!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2014 16:03:11 GMT -5
I'm sure the reason the government backed down this time was to prevent 30.000 morons from hurting themselves and others. If this guy has refused to pay his fees for 20 years, then the majority of America should be against him. Most of us don't own a ranch with more than 1000 cows, but we all pay our taxes anyway, and those fees he owes are for the costs used to maintain the federal land, which is there for all of us, not just Bundy and his cows. I hope when the feds come back, they take all of his property from him too. His cattle have been released back to him.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Apr 13, 2014 21:07:15 GMT -5
I'm sure the reason the government backed down this time was to prevent 30.000 morons from hurting themselves and others. If this guy has refused to pay his fees for 20 years, then the majority of America should be against him. Most of us don't own a ranch with more than 1000 cows, but we all pay our taxes anyway, and those fees he owes are for the costs used to maintain the federal land, which is there for all of us, not just Bundy and his cows. I hope when the feds come back, they take all of his property from him too. Seems you love big government. I wonder what the Feds do to maintain thousands of acres of nevada land. Somehow I doubt it is much.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Apr 13, 2014 21:09:28 GMT -5
I'm sure the reason the government backed down this time was to prevent 30.000 morons from hurting themselves and others. If this guy has refused to pay his fees for 20 years, then the majority of America should be against him. Most of us don't own a ranch with more than 1000 cows, but we all pay our taxes anyway, and those fees he owes are for the costs used to maintain the federal land, which is there for all of us, not just Bundy and his cows. I hope when the feds come back, they take all of his property from him too. I doubt the government has a problem with citizens getting hurt. They backed down because many Americans sympathize with this rancher, seeing the U.S. government as heavy handed when it comes to things like land use rights. The number of protesters would increase exponentially if this were to continue. The congresscritters would like to keep their cushy jobs in office. Not to mention that Harry Reid seems to have his fingers in this pie as well.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Apr 13, 2014 21:10:45 GMT -5
I have to pay $20 per day to visit that land, and I have. I don't think his cows should get to graze there for free. Really? You have been to the land in southern NV, I saw pictures of it, WHY would you want to visit it? And to pay $20, you must have had a good reason, did they charge you to look at cows, or was it tortoises?
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Apr 13, 2014 21:12:27 GMT -5
So the rancher can welch on the $1,000,000 he owes the Federal Government in grazing fees, but some want to complain and hand wring about the poor, taxes and entitlements??? The Sun Spot Lives On Sanitarium for the Schizophrenic Sufferers. Uhmmm Kay!!!! I think it was $300,000 with of course the feds tripling it due to their not collecting it 20 years ago. I don't agree with his not paying the grazing fees that he agreed to, but I also don't agree with the Feds kicking him off the land because of tortoises. Seems both parties have some issues. I also think that all of this federal land needs to be returned to the states to manage.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 13, 2014 21:28:41 GMT -5
Why do we have to pay for grazing rights on land that is otherwise idle? How do the cattle "damage" or intefere with others' use of the land? When they kill all the grass, you get erosion. The grass roots the soil in place. Once you get erosion you get dustbowls. What this man is doing is little different than if I walk into the food store, grab a carton of milk and walk out without paying for it: he is stealing from the taxpayers. Cattle don't kill the grass. You are thinking of sheep. Cattle will eat it down short, but not to the roots. Again, what is the authority for the BLM to claim this land? If they have no authority, then it's not stealing, it's the government doing the stealing. And, I read one article that claims that the BLM has been buying up the ranches, for low prices, stripping the water rights, then dumping the land. That means all the water rights are being consolidating in the Federal government.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 13, 2014 21:30:56 GMT -5
Sorry, there is no "law". Since the Feds are prohibited from "owning" any land, except for "forts, magazines, docks, and for government buildings", unless they are planning on making NV a shipyard, they have no rights to that land. And, according to the news last night, that is state land anyway, not "Federal". It is federal property... belonging to all of us... but managed by the federal government on our behalf... and I'm glad about that... I love to visit such land... and have... many times... By what authority does the Federal government "own" that property?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 13, 2014 21:32:41 GMT -5
Nope. He was on TV last night, saying he's willing to pay, but not to the Feds, since it's not Federal land. It's state land. Sounds like the guy in Miles City, MT who borrowed several hundred thousand dollars and bought farm equipment with it... then refused to pay the money back because he said it was Federal Reserve money... what an idiot... this is federally managed land... part of the Lake Meade National Recreation Area... the state of Nevada doesn't maintain or manage it... You don't pay the state a fee when you visit a National Park... National Recreation Area, or National Monument... they are maintained by the federal government... for the enjoyment of ALL of us... not just those within those states... By what authority?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 13, 2014 21:34:36 GMT -5
Why? What is the Feds' authority? 16 U.S. Code § 1a–1 - National Park System Since they aren't building forts, arsenals, magazines, docks, or shipyards, there is no law. Otherwise, they are in violation of the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 13, 2014 21:37:18 GMT -5
Then he should have been making those payments to the state for the last 20 years, or putting it in escrow if nothing else. This guy sounds remarkably like you. He pushes an argument for states rights, but kind of ignores reality on the ground. Well there is a place for martyrs in making political changes. And the 5,000 idiots from "militias" from several states coming to Nevada in his defense... most of them armed... Sad that so many think they want such chaos... people making their own laws... like those apocalyptic movies we see where the people left ride around in armored vehicles... looting... and trying to find food for themselves... The Puppet and his Merry Marxists have been making up their own laws for at least 5 years. So, if the government can make up laws, why can't the citizens?
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 13, 2014 21:41:17 GMT -5
I'm sure the reason the government backed down this time was to prevent 30.000 morons from hurting themselves and others. If this guy has refused to pay his fees for 20 years, then the majority of America should be against him. Most of us don't own a ranch with more than 1000 cows, but we all pay our taxes anyway, and those fees he owes are for the costs used to maintain the federal land, which is there for all of us, not just Bundy and his cows. I hope when the feds come back, they take all of his property from him too. I doubt the government has a problem with citizens getting hurt. They backed down because many Americans sympathize with this rancher, seeing the U.S. government as heavy handed when it comes to things like land use rights. The number of protesters would increase exponentially if this were to continue. The congresscritters would like to keep their cushy jobs in office. Not true... they were concerned about the federal agents attempting to uphold the law... Bundy had said he would use force against them if they tried to force him to comply with the law... and he had 30,000 idiots there to see that he continued to break the law... the United States of America has had title to that land since 1848... when it was obtained from Mexico...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 13, 2014 21:42:35 GMT -5
Sad that one guy refuses to pay his grazing fees on federal land when 1,600 other cattle farmers do... and get's away with it for 20 years... and has support... Desert cowboy just told you, there are only 3 left in that area, now.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Apr 13, 2014 21:44:05 GMT -5
I'm sure the reason the government backed down this time was to prevent 30.000 morons from hurting themselves and others. If this guy has refused to pay his fees for 20 years, then the majority of America should be against him. Most of us don't own a ranch with more than 1000 cows, but we all pay our taxes anyway, and those fees he owes are for the costs used to maintain the federal land, which is there for all of us, not just Bundy and his cows. I hope when the feds come back, they take all of his property from him too. His cattle have been released back to him. And hopefully he will graze them on his own property... adjacent to the BLM land...
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 13, 2014 21:46:31 GMT -5
I don't think the show of force by the government goon squads is necessary either. Only because the rancher had threatened to use force against them first... they had the right to protect themselves... 200 armed government agents... 30,000 armed militants... Whom did he threaten? If there weren't any BLM agents, then how did he threaten anyone
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Apr 13, 2014 21:49:05 GMT -5
I'm sure the reason the government backed down this time was to prevent 30.000 morons from hurting themselves and others. If this guy has refused to pay his fees for 20 years, then the majority of America should be against him. Most of us don't own a ranch with more than 1000 cows, but we all pay our taxes anyway, and those fees he owes are for the costs used to maintain the federal land, which is there for all of us, not just Bundy and his cows. I hope when the feds come back, they take all of his property from him too. Please show me the authority for it to be "Federal land".
|
|