Nevada BLM actions background

Pages

682 posts / 0 new
Last post
doublebarrelsaloon's picture
doublebarrelsaloon
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/22/09

I do agree with that however with grazing fees is there also an agreement on a management/maintenance level that the BLM, when taking fees also agrees to and maybe wasn't upholding their side? I'm not asking to argue I'm not an expert here and would like to learn more. 

Plainsman Said:
The government has not been absent, and up to 1993 they were paid for the grazing fees.  This is more like people having a house they do not live in so they rent it out.  After a few years the people stop paying their rent.  I would find a reason to throw them out. 
With government intruding into our lives more each year there is a part of me that wants to be on any side against them.  However, I can't support a thief in his efforts for free grazing.  I guess there are many other places to oppose the new oppression we see from our government other than supporting a dishonest rancher.

I dont go around guessing cup sizes either I just know a nice rack when I see one.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

plainsamn, two questions.

1. Why was the BLM destroying water systems on these lands if they intend to allow grazing?

2. How can the Clark County Commissioners under Sen. Reids leadership vote to sell these BLM lands to the Chinese if the county has no authority over them?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:

 

I find it interesting that some people are quick to lay the blame on the rancher claiming "he broke the law" by refusing to pay the Federal entity the fees overlooking the govts actions themselves.

Now is that just not precious!!! You where quick to blame Cook for breaking the ND law that he is challenging!!

See gst it is this kind of Bull crap that makes almost anyone that really listens to you know you are a hypocrite!

So one more time,in his own words he has changed what he is protesting!!!!
Fine it still does not change situation or fact that he is wrong based on his own admissions.

Do not disagree that Harry Reid is a scum bag and that there is very likely payoffs or bribes taking place, However bundy and his position go back to 93 on this!

So good bad or ugly as I have said the wrongs do not make a right period!!!

ron indeed I was but I do not believe I have said he had no right to do so if he felt it was unjust??? Have I?

Just as I was "quick to blame Cook, you were just as "quick"  to defend Cooks" actions against a standing law were you not?

So then why does Cook have that right in your eyes, but apparently this rancher does not?

So please ron, before you continue to make what was a nice discussion personal, take a look in the mirror.

I do not believe I have said Mr. Bundy has not broken the law/regulation regarding who these fees should be paid to. I have merely stated what Mr. Bundy believes as to why he did.

So ron answer this, what authority allows the Clark County Commissioners to vote unanimously under Sen Reids sons leadership to sell these BLM lands to the Chinese?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

outofrange Said:
  gst, do you know whats funny? 

The land that the "county commission approved sale for" wasn't the Bundy ranch. It was 20 miles away. It is the type of loose association of rumors that shreds the Bundy defense. His defense is that he feels that Nevada is sovereign... guess what, it's not. 

So if the land wasn't being deeded to the chinaman, and this isn't the site of the solar panels, and Rory Reid isn't in the bushes behind house, what is this about? It's about a court order to remove the cattle owned by some deadbeat rancher from MY PUBLIC LANDS!

This isn't about tortoises (anymore), not about ENN, not about Hage, not about Hawaii, not about a ditch, not about the Reid family, not about states rights, not about oil, not about fence height, not about criminally low public rangeland lease rates of $1.35/aum, not about alleged attempted payments to Clark County, or any of the other red herrings and straw arguments you've tried twist to satisfy your tyrannical narrative. 

Out of range, listening to Glen Beck are you?

What Mr. Beck and yourself do not realize is that the lands that were being mitigated for the sale of the BLM lands to the Chinese WERE on Mr. Bundys allotment.

Note the BLM documents provided that acknowledge that as well as the necessary removal of the cattle from these lands for mitigation.

out of range, these were the documents that were once on the BLM website but were recently removed after this action started. Only to be found by an investigative reporter on other cached website sources.

Why would they remove these documents?

Did you watch the last video I posted?

Out of range, do you understand the mitigation process?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:
The government has not been absent, and up to 1993 they were paid for the grazing fees.  This is more like people having a house they do not live in so they rent it out.  After a few years the people stop paying their rent.  I would find a reason to throw them out. 
With government intruding into our lives more each year there is a part of me that wants to be on any side against them.  However, I can't support a thief in his efforts for free grazing.  I guess there are many other places to oppose the new oppression we see from our government other than supporting a dishonest rancher.

plaisnman I will ask you the same question I asked ron, what do you know about western water rights and land usage?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

doublebarrelsaloon Said:
I do agree with that however with grazing fees is there also an agreement on a management/maintenance level that the BLM, when taking fees also agrees to and maybe wasn't upholding their side? I'm not asking to argue I'm not an expert here and would like to learn more. 

Plainsman Said:
The government has not been absent, and up to 1993 they were paid for the grazing fees.  This is more like people having a house they do not live in so they rent it out.  After a few years the people stop paying their rent.  I would find a reason to throw them out. 
With government intruding into our lives more each year there is a part of me that wants to be on any side against them.  However, I can't support a thief in his efforts for free grazing.  I guess there are many other places to oppose the new oppression we see from our government other than supporting a dishonest rancher.

One needs to understand water rights in these western lands. The Hage case seemed to hinge on them. These water rights were apparently sold to previous generations decades ago before the BLM came into existance.

As I understand it there are land usage agreements that go with these water rights to certain areas.

apparnetly under Nevada law (and other western states) you have to "prove up" your water rights every 3 years to maintain the usage of the lands that are tied to them.

Wayne Hage was able to show an unbroken chain of doing this back to the actual purchase of the rights multiple generations ago.

The court upheld his claim. I do not know Mr. Bundy can do this any more than someone else knows he can not.

His daughter seems to think they can in a letter she wrote.

it is why I have asked the question multiple times and received no answer, why were the BLM agents destroying water systems established on these lands?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

marksman Said:
Thanks Gabe for the real facts again. I will wait for the huggers AKA plainsman and hard waterman to try to bs other people on here fishmahn will defend the socialist policy of this "president "  

What is hopefully noted here is I am not trying to change people like these minds. Nor do I wish to engage in the typical petty personal crap these discussions all too often become.

I simply thought a few relevant facts should be brought to light given the main stream medias lack of coverage and reporting of this story.

If it were not for the online news sources, who would have heard about this?

Who would have known the extent of a Senators involvement?

Who would have known what this was actually about (at least those that wish to explore it a bit) 
 
As I said, I find it curious some on this site are so quick to condemn other Federal agencies for the over reaches they perceive or are in fact very real, yet they are quick to defend and dismiss such over reach by Federal agencies they may approve of.

I honestly off the top of my head can not think of one single Federal agency that has not overstepped their bounds.

Our govt has indeed began a direct serious effort to grow large enough to "give us everything we need" and yet some do not want to take an honest look at the consequences we see every day of them incrementally "taking away everything we have".

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

in the end the final result will be determined by who has the most fire power.  If the government can convince the military it should kill americans than the government will win.  If not then the militias will win.  And there will be a huge political cost.

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Case in point.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/15/regulation-nation-breweries-f...

Regulation Nation: Breweries fight back against new government grain rules

A fight is brewing between American beer makers and the federal government over happy hour ... for cows. 

For centuries, brewers have given or sold the leftover grain from the brewing process to local ranchers and dairy farmers for cattle feed. But new regulations proposed by the Food and Drug Administration threaten to end that relationship. 

"The whole brewing community was shocked about it," said Josh Deth, co-owner of Revolution Brewing in Chicago, Ill. 

Deth, whose title is "Chairman of the Party," says it's always been a great deal for both sides. The ranchers get the grain, and the brewers get those leftovers removed from their facilities for free. 

"We're trading, giving something of value to each other and working it out. I think that's one of the really great things, and people really hate to see the government get involved in something where they can just as easily stay out of this." 

Under the FDA's proposed regulations, so-called spent grains would be regulated the same as pet food -- meaning brewers would first be required to dry and package the grain without it coming into contact with humans. 

Deth said the regulations would make it far too costly for him to prepare the grains to be passed along to farmers. The only remaining option would be sending it to a landfill, which would cost more than $100,000 a year. 

That would be bad for dairy and cattle farmers like Jim Minich, who gets 30 tons of spent grain from Revolution Brewing each week. Not only does the grain save him more than $100,000 a year in feed costs, his 750 cows also produce more milk after chowing down on their "happy hour." 

"I mean it's just basically grain and it's got a lot of yeast in it and it's wet, so it adds to the palatability of the feed so they eat more," he said. 

The regulations are part of the FDA's Food Safety Modernization Act, a sweeping new food safety reform law signed by President Obama in 2011. According to the FDA, the purpose of the law is to improve the safety of animal food. 

There's no record of spent grains causing any problems for cows or humans, though, according to Chris Thorne, a spokesman with the Beer Institute. 

"We already meet or exceed the goals that the FDA would like us to see. So we see these regulatory procedures as completely unnecessary," Thorne told Fox News. 

The FDA was flooded by comments from brewers, distillers and cow farmers when the proposed rule was announced.   

Several members of Congress have since added their voices as well to those asking the administration to reconsider the law. 

Responding to the outcry, the FDA said in a statement it is now looking to revise the language for the rule this summer before issuing a final decision sometime next year. 

"We are working to develop regulations that are responsive to the concerns expressed, practical for businesses, and that also help ensure that food for animals is safe and will not cause injury to animals or humans," the FDA said.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

First off my only reason for bringing up Cook was to highlight your hypocrisy nothing else. You where the one crowing about Cook breaking ND law, and then making the statement that you did concerning Bundy. 

Second what the county did right or wrong is not reflective of Bundy or his claims. If they where wrong it does not make Bundy right!!! 

Again why is it so hard for you to grasp that fact !!! 

The issues I have addressed are views and observations I have taken from Bundys own words and comments nothing else. He has been to court over this issue and lost at the US District level and now his option is to appeal to the 9th.

He has not been granted a stay of the orders and that is the rub. It has moved beyond the state level. So given that the Feds have a court ruling putting them in the right to move forward, unlike Cook who did get a hold granted until the appeals process moves forward.

That means to me very simply that until or unless a stay is granted he is in direct violation of the court findings not a state written law but Fed law on Fed owned land.

So all the smoke and mirror bull crap you continue to produce does not change these hard facts!!!

HE has the right to appeal, and ask for relief in putting a stay on the eviction of his cattle. To date that appeal from what I have seen has not been filed or granted. Without it the Feds do have legal authority to remove his cattle or place liens against them to recoup the costs incurred. With the court ruling in place they have control of the property and can affect changes to the property as they deem fit. That without a court order preventing it would include the water ways etc.... Like so many things gst, it is about the rule of law and proper challenge to them. Bundy if he does not want the feds to do anything to the water systems has to file an appeal and ask for a stay of the previous court ruling. If he fails to do so, and get that then the BLM or controlling agency will be within their court granted rights to continue.

Now again can you focus on the issues, and those are again the fact that Bundy has lost at the district level and needs to appeal to the 9th and then the SCOTUS if he loses there. If he does not get a stay granted he has to remove his cattle period.

Are the Feds in violation? NO but their actions where over the top in my view.

Harry Reid and his minions are in my view dirty as hell but have no bearing on if Bundy is wrong or right. Separate issues all together!!!!!

Now I have answered the questions in the best possible way.

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

E.Springers's picture
E.Springers
Offline
Joined: 4/22/02

???!!! wheeeeeee!!!!

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

ron, does Mr. Bundy have any less right to defy a law he believes is unjust than does Mr. Cook?

ron once again, what do you know about western water rights and the land usage tied to them?

Why would the BLM agents be destroying established water systems?

Please point out the "smoke and mirror crap" that you believe I am "producing"?

It is my opinion the facts show clearly what this is all about.

One again I do not think I have said Mr Bundy has not knowingly violated the BLM regulations as they view them in regards to paying their fees and instead paid them to the county which seems to have the authority to vote to sell these same BLM lands.

I do not believe I have claimed this is legal or not, only pointed out this is what Mr Bundy apparently believes should be legal, just as Cook believes his buying of land as a nonprofit without going thru the proper procedures here in our state should be legal.

ron if you wish to answer some of these questions and continue what was a non personal discussion please do. If you wish to make this personal please take it over to the other threads avalible on this topic to do so.


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

ron, the angst of Mr Bundys veiws arise from a change in BLM policies which have resulted in 52 of 53 ranchers being removed from these lands and would have reduced his allotment to a level he also would have been forced off.

His veiws are apparently he does not recognize the authority he once did of a Federal agency using his own dollars to put him out of business.

If a Federal agency that regulated blind cleaning businesses that you had to pay a fee to operate to started using these fees to reduce the size of your blind cleaning business to the point it was no longer viable what would be your views of their actions?

Indeed the Reid connection is separate from grazing fees, yet connected unless you deny the BLM documents removed from their website yet uncovered by investigative reporters that speak to the removal of Bundys cattle from BLM lands to mitigate BLM lands sold to a Chinese group by Reids son.

If you choose to over look this connection plus others (Reid redrawing the desert tortoise boundries to accomodated other developers)  perhaps you would claim these are unrelated.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

You are still missing the point, he has went to court on this issue and has repeatedly lost on his position. I did not say I disagree with his view, but whether one agrees or disagrees matters only to the point of a courts ruling. Courts do and can come to a different finding and the level of authority of the court then determines the course of which they can continue.

Lets back up a bit and apply your logic to the Cook case. When a ruling comes down if affirmed the state court ruling will prevail and the law continues, and Cook then has the option of appeal to the next higher level.

If the state loses which is where Bundy is at in his court journey, then they have to appeal to the next highest level and ask for the lower courts rulings to not be implemented until after the next appeal process.

Now all that said, it does not change the fact that Bundy has lost and currently has not appealed the loss and instead is defying a court order without relief from a higher court.

His actions are both civil and criminal gst, and since they are criminal, lets break this down to a clear understanding of the defiance. This would be no different than a pedaphile thumbing his nose at the courts and continuing to entice and produce child porn, after all in his view the Gov has made laws or changed laws that make his pursuit of his livelihood harder if not impossible.

I use this as an example because like it or not we are a nation goverened by laws and have a process of which we can challenge the laws. We are not a nation though that allows or condones the thumbing of our nose to those laws when we challenge them and lose.

If he had not had multiple days in court to present his position it would really be different, but he has had the day in court and lost more than once!!

I know it really galls you to have to admit that he is breaking the law and has lost in court on his position because it takes away the argument of the Fed Gov not having the right to do what they did. THEY DID AND DO HAVE THE RIGHT AT THIS POINT BASED ON THE COURT FINDINGS!!!

His next step is to appeal those finding and ask for a stay not to defy the courts and then piss and moan about the results of the defiance!!

So what is next? You going to cut and paste something else to try and keep this thread alive when most people who have taken any time at all to look into it will see that the rancher currently is in the wrong and the Fed while over the top where within their legal rights to act as they did and that this issue predates any Harry Reid involvement as well but does not excuse Dirty Harry from his unscrupulous behavior and acts.

There is really nothing left to be said on this, the rancher has to appeal or forget and move on. The feds have won in the courts because the rancher lacks the ability to document his claims and have had that affirmed by other courts. The people threatening the Fed officials with violence to impose their will are just as wrong and again I will say that continued wrong behavior and choices do not make a right.

So like or dislike the way it is, the hard fact is that the courts have ruled against the rancher and he is not entitled to use the lands and if he does he is acting in a criminal manner as well as civil without permission to do so from a higher court!!

THAT GST IS THE FACTS IN THIS CASE!!!

Unlike Hage who could prove his case and claims.

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

gdtrfb's picture
gdtrfb
Offline
Joined: 7/7/09

 I may have missed it but can you link a source of the destroying of water lines/tanks?


sickofthesmoke's picture
sickofthesmoke
Offline
Joined: 11/14/12

One Question?  Why if he legally owed the fed. govt. 1 million in delinquent fees did they not put a lien on his private property (private land, cows, etc.) Bundy would have to pay it or lose his property same as you or I. Did he owe the money or not? Another question is at 2 Dollars a head per month for 20 years yearound for 400 head comes to $192000.00 . a far cry from 1 million. My point is that if the feds wanted their money there were ways they could have got it. I'm not standing up for Bundy or the feds, but the whole thing stinks of buerocratic bullshit.

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

sickofthesmoke Said:
One Question?  Why if he legally owed the fed. govt. 1 million in delinquent fees did they not put a lien on his private property (private land, cows, etc.) Bundy would have to pay it or lose his property same as you or I. Did he owe the money or not? Another question is at 2 Dollars a head per month for 20 years yearound for 400 head comes to $192000.00 . a far cry from 1 million. My point is that if the feds wanted their money there were ways they could have got it. I'm not standing up for Bundy or the feds, but the whole thing stinks of buerocratic bullshit.

I would bet the fed's knew they couldn't win via the lien process so they chose this avenue and it backfired.

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

gdtrfb Said:
 I may have missed it but can you link a source of the destroying of water lines/tanks?

There were a couple reports that mentioned it early on. When I have a bit more time I will try to link them.


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Here is a view from a fellow rancher in the area that seems to know a bit.

Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended"AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

-Kena Lytle Gloeckner

as ladd mentioned earlier, these lands most times are under "multiple use laws". These Federal agencies are changing the allowed "use" to the point where these ranchers basically forfeit these allotments because they simply can not stay in business at the levels the Feds reduce them to.

Once the cattle are off, it is free for development.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:
You are still missing the point, he has went to court on this issue and has repeatedly lost on his position. I did not say I disagree with his view, but whether one agrees or disagrees matters only to the point of a courts ruling. Courts do and can come to a different finding and the level of authority of the court then determines the course of which they can continue.

Lets back up a bit and apply your logic to the Cook case. When a ruling comes down if affirmed the state court ruling will prevail and the law continues, and Cook then has the option of appeal to the next higher level.

If the state loses which is where Bundy is at in his court journey, then they have to appeal to the next highest level and ask for the lower courts rulings to not be implemented until after the next appeal process.

Now all that said, it does not change the fact that Bundy has lost and currently has not appealed the loss and instead is defying a court order without relief from a higher court.

His actions are both civil and criminal gst, and since they are criminal, lets break this down to a clear understanding of the defiance. This would be no different than a pedaphile thumbing his nose at the courts and continuing to entice and produce child porn, after all in his view the Gov has made laws or changed laws that make his pursuit of his livelihood harder if not impossible.

I use this as an example because like it or not we are a nation goverened by laws and have a process of which we can challenge the laws. We are not a nation though that allows or condones the thumbing of our nose to those laws when we challenge them and lose.

If he had not had multiple days in court to present his position it would really be different, but he has had the day in court and lost more than once!!

I know it really galls you to have to admit that he is breaking the law and has lost in court on his position because it takes away the argument of the Fed Gov not having the right to do what they did. THEY DID AND DO HAVE THE RIGHT AT THIS POINT BASED ON THE COURT FINDINGS!!!

His next step is to appeal those finding and ask for a stay not to defy the courts and then piss and moan about the results of the defiance!!

So what is next? You going to cut and paste something else to try and keep this thread alive when most people who have taken any time at all to look into it will see that the rancher currently is in the wrong and the Fed while over the top where within their legal rights to act as they did and that this issue predates any Harry Reid involvement as well but does not excuse Dirty Harry from his unscrupulous behavior and acts.

So now you are decreeing what everyone on FBO thinks? Perhaps to others it is simply so obvious it is not worth discussing.

There is really nothing left to be said on this, the rancher has to appeal or forget and move on. The feds have won in the courts because the rancher lacks the ability to document his claims and have had that affirmed by other courts. ron do you know this has been attempted in the court or was the case only over whether the fees were paid or not?  The people threatening the Fed officials with violence to impose their will are just as wrong and again I will say that continued wrong behavior and choices do not make a right.

So like or dislike the way it is, the hard fact is that the courts have ruled against the rancher and he is not entitled to use the lands and if he does he is acting in a criminal manner as well as civil without permission to do so from a higher court!!

THAT GST IS THE FACTS IN THIS CASE!!!

Unlike Hage who could prove his case and claims.

Ron, as I said I don;t think I have ever claimed Mr. Bundy is not "breaking the law" in not paying the fees to the BLM.

You wish to use pedophiles as an example, then would you equate Cook to a pedophile as well for his intentional breaking of the laws of the state of ND? You seem to believe making a living molesting a child and making a living ranching are equitable comparisons?

I noticed you duck answering this question ron.
If a Federal agency that regulated blind cleaning businesses that you had to pay a fee to operate to started using these fees to reduce the size of your blind cleaning business to the point it was no longer viable what would be your views of their actions?

Is the blind cleaning business equitable to a child porn business ron?

Perhaps a better example would be what Megan Kelly mentioned last nite. She acknowledged as a lawyer the courts have Mr. Bundy "dead to rights" was the phrase I believe she used. But then she went on to use as an example the Jim Crow laws.  At a point in our history the courts also had people that broke the Jim Crow laws "dead to rights" as well but thru their defiance these unjust laws were over turned.

Ron if you wish to ignore the "facts" regarding BLM documents they tried to hide (BLM, an agency now headed by Reids former senior advisor)  that showed a causation to remove these cattle linked directly back to Sen Reid (who had the lines for the sdesert torotise areas redrawn to allow for development) , thru his son Rory Reid who is the front man for a Chinese firm who purchased lands under approval from the Clark County Commission (far below their appraised value) which Reids son was the head of at the time of the sale,  which the BLM lands purchased by the Chinese needed to be mitigated with the very lands the BLM document shows were on Mr Bundys allotment and there in gave reason for the intent to move Mr. Bundys cattle off  all thru a developer that was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Sen Reid only to have his conviction overturned that same day by a US district court judge................................................it is certainly your right to have the opinion all this has nothing to do with hundreds of armed guards descending on Mr Bundys ranch.

Perhaps it is only about a rancher not paying grazing fees.

The Reverand Al Sharpton owes 1.9 million in back taxes and has not paid them, do you suppose the IRS will surround him with a few hundred armed agents? .

sickofthesmoke's picture
sickofthesmoke
Offline
Joined: 11/14/12

In order to owe 1 million in grazing fees to the BLM at $2.00 per head per month he would have had to have 2083.3 head grazing yearound for twenty years.

sickofthesmoke's picture
sickofthesmoke
Offline
Joined: 11/14/12

In order to owe 1 million in grazing fees since 1993 Bundy would have had to run 2083 head yearound at 2 dollars a head per month. If in fact he lost those grazing rights completely in 1993 how can they say he didn't pay them for twenty years? If he is simply claiming preemptive rights to water and forage he will have to prove title. Both parties have had 20 years to do this by the way. If you owed the IRS 1 million they would have found a way to collect. So it comes down to does he owe the money or not, and does he hold any title to water or forage.

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

sickofthesmoke Said:
In order to owe 1 million in grazing fees since 1993 Bundy would have had to run 2083 head yearound at 2 dollars a head per month. If in fact he lost those grazing rights completely in 1993 how can they say he didn't pay them for twenty years? If he is simply claiming preemptive rights to water and forage he will have to prove title. Both parties have had 20 years to do this by the way. If you owed the IRS 1 million they would have found a way to collect. So it comes down to does he owe the money or not, and does he hold any title to water or forage.

Where it really gets weird, is according to that last letter gst posted, he refused to sign the contract, so he was basically running cattle on BLM land without permission (illegally?) for 20 years. He is technically a squatter.

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

gst I am not ignoring anything, and I did answer your question you do not think the law is fair based on constitutional standards then you have to seek relief from the courts if you cannot persuade those in charge to change the law. Be it your example of my blind business or farming or whatever occupation or law. It is that simple so stop being such a dumbass.

In regards to the blm documents these are not documents from 1993 or any time during which Bundy was presenting his case to the courts. They are only relavent to the behavior and possible corruption of Reid and others associated with him. They have no affect upon Bundys standing in the least!

So with your balloon popped what are you going to try next?

Rancher has had his day in court and lost but still can appeal. The result of the court rulings are that he has no right to graze cattle and if he does they are trespassing and he is liable for damages caused by the trespass as well as the efforts to remove the trespass. So he is on the hook for the cattle round up if the Feds push it.

I have stated before that I did not like the action they chose to take but understood they had the legal authority to do so in that manner.

Reid issue is not relevant to Bundy's claims but are a separate issue all together. So there really is nothing left to say or claim or try and imply.

Now again like or dislike of the law or proceedings is also not a factor it is about what and who has the legal standings. As of now BLM has the standing and is entitled to do what they want until a higher court says otherwise. That could include dismantling of water ways and pumping stations based on the courts rulings.

So what does that leave you with? Not much to complain about, really nor should vigilante behavior on Bundy's behalf be allowed or supported. He is clearly by court ruling not entitled to use of the lands and did not have the documentation to prove otherwise.
Protesting on his behalf is fine and I am not in disagreement with that, but no armed action should be tolerated nor should anyone from the protest side be allowed without arrest to make violent threats!!!!
Pretty basic and simple when you strip away the Bull Crap!! 

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Ron read this if you would. This person likely has a better handle on this that either you or I.

gst Said:
Here is a view from a fellow rancher in the area that seems to know a bit.

Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended"AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

-Kena Lytle Gloeckner

as ladd mentioned earlier, these lands most times are under "multiple use laws". These Federal agencies are changing the allowed "use" to the point where these ranchers basically forfeit these allotments because they simply can not stay in business at the levels the Feds reduce them to.

Once the cattle are off, it is free for development.

Once again ron, what do you know about these western lands water rights andland usage laws?

Earlier you admitted not much.

ron as I said earlier I am not trying to convince you of anything, just sharing some facts that the main stream media was not putting out so people can make their own minds up.

so at this point ron, after you have avoided answering a number of questions such as what you know about western states water rights and land usage laws,  I have but one more for you.

why the following?
Hardwaterman Said:
 It is that simple so stop being such a dumbass.

Well it was a nice discussion while it lasted.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

gst again this has been through the courts and he lost, Hage had the same complaint and proved his case! However you look at it, the fact remains that he has had his day in court and for some reason has not filed an appeal to a higher court.

I am not saying that I like the BLM, what I am saying is that the courts have stated he does not have the documentation to prove his claims!!!

What part of that is beyond your grasp?

Why cant you get that he has made these claims in court and lost?

To win you have to have legal standing either in the contract you have entered or by the law written that governs the actions.

In his case he was unable to prove his claims, and thus he lost!!

If he had not had his day in court I would hold more sympathy for his plight, but like it or not he has had that day so get over it! YOU do not have to like the outcome but you cannot say he has not had a chance to prove his claims!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

sickofthesmoke's picture
sickofthesmoke
Offline
Joined: 11/14/12

This is an ideal story as far as the media is concerned. The drama is there to begin with and then they report on it as if it is a problem within a code wrapped up in an inigma and presented as a riddle. It seems nothing is cut and dried anymore. Can you imagine if we didn't have Bill of rights, Constitution, 10 commandments to use as words to live and govern by.  I better stop there before someone accuses me of being racist fearmongering or using hate speech to further my conspiracy theory opinions.

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Definition of public land according to Blacks Law Dictionary:

Public lands comprise the general public domain; unappropriated lands; the lands not held back or reserved for any special governmental or public purpose. US. v Gareston, 42.4.22,24.

It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached DOES NOT FALL within the desigation of public land. Bardon v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 12 S.Ct.856, 145 U.S. 535, 538, 36 L.Ed.806.

"Public lands" are lands open to sale or other disposition under general laws, lands to which no claims or right of others have been attached.

Having various meanings under different statutes and circumstances, the term "public lands" generally refers to government lands that are open to public sale or other disposition under general laws and that are NOT HELD BACK OR RESERVED FOR A GOVERNMENTAL OR PUBLIC PURPOSE. The phrase "public lands" is synonymous with "public domain."

Ordinarily, word "fee" or "fee simple" is applied to an ESTATE OF LAND, but the term is applicable to any kind of hereditament, corporeal or incorporeal, and it is all the property in thing referred to or largest estate therein.

"Fee" signifies an ESTATE OF INHERITANCE, being the highest and most extensive interest which a man can have in a feud; and when the term used simply, without any adjunct, or in the form "fee simple," it imports an absolute inheritance clear of any condition, limitation or restriction to particular heirs.

The grant of a "fee" in land conveys to the grantee COMPLETE OWNERSHIP, immediately and forever, with the right of possession from boundary to boundary.

"In common speech the non-mineral portion of land, the portion which covers and envelopes the minerals, is called the 'surface' or the 'land,' and the proprietor of land who divests himself of title to the minerals which it contains is still spoken of as the 'owner' of the 'fee' or of the 'surface' or of the 'land'. In Laws 1897, providing that where the "fee to the surface" of any land is in any person and the right or title to any minerals therein is in another person, the right to such minerals shall be valued and listed separately from the FEE TO THE LAND.

A private citizen has no enforceable right in public lands (AS OPPOSED TO PATENTED OR FEE LANDS).

From 1897 to 1993 this agreement was working. But after almost 100 years things changed. The fed/gov is paramount.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Once again ron it seems you are the one that can not grasp I understand that. I readily admit that.

what you do not seem to understand the court case and ruling was NOT on whether he had established a unbroken chain back to the purchase of the water rights, I don;t believe that claim has been presented has it?  It was on whether he had paid the fees or not.

There is a bit of difference between those two issues.

ron how were the Jim Crow laws overturned?

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

gst what facts have you presented that change anything regarding Bundy? There is nothing, he had his chance to present his grievances in court, he has to prove his claims. From the so called BLM behavior to his supposed ownership of the land, he failed, repeatedly!

There is nothing more to say regarding him. Now if you want to make this an issue of the BLM behavior and leave Bundy and his failed court attempts out, fine, that I would like to explore, Hage case and a few others as well are good examples of shedding light on the Gov when they over reach. But do not hang Bundy from the flag claiming injustice when he has lost and others have won.

That is why I have called you a dumbass! Bundy screwed the pooch himself and is trying to blame others for his poor choice and gamble. That is all there is to the Bundy story anymore. Notice how on the broadcast  media when it became known via the web and other social media outlets that Bundy had his day in court they dropped it?

See that is the big thing to people when they see and hear about an outrage and then find out the facts and go why is the guy pissing and moaning he screwed himself!!!

So if you want to take the ball and discuss the issue of the BLM do so, but stop pretending that Bundy is a victim of it, he is a victim of his own choice, just as a driver who drinks and gets stopped and charged with a DUI is!!! He made a bad choice and that is all there is to the Bundy case!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Ron said,

gst again this has been through the courts and he lost, Hage had the same complaint and proved his case!

Wayne Hage was told over and over for about ten years that he was going to lose.

He lost many rounds before he won.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Fritz the Cat Said:

Ron said,

gst again this has been through the courts and he lost, Hage had the same complaint and proved his case!

Wayne Hage was told over and over for about ten years that he was going to lose.

He lost many rounds before he won.

Not in the courts but with the BLM which is vastly different, he won his taking case, essentially won his trespass case even though it was deemed a loss because he paid something like $180.00 and won his water rights case as well. Because he had the documents to prove his water rights and property and lease practice abuse by the BLM! During that time he never quit paying for his grazing as well which should good faith on his behalf. So again Bundy and Hage are not a equal comparison of events, one chose to stop paying and continue to graze the other continued to pay and fought to have his rights restored and won.

So all that is left is the issue of what has taken place with Dirty Harry and the BLM and local officials. A totally separate issue that has no bearing on Bundy. Care to discuss that?

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

ndraised's picture
ndraised
Offline
Joined: 3/27/05

wake up you RADICAL gun toting FREAKs. Even your "GOD" Bill Oreilly agrees with me.   You agree with people TAKING UP ARMS against the government. YOU SHOULD LOSS YOUR GUN RIGHTS then.. He had his day in court and you think they should stop the feds with their guns.. Your freaks who have been BRAIN WASHED

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

 

ndraised Said:
wake up you RADICAL gun toting FREAKs. Even your "GOD" Bill Oreilly agrees with me.   You agree with people TAKING UP ARMS against the government. YOU SHOULD LOSS YOUR GUN RIGHTS then.. He had his day in court and you think they should stop the feds with their guns.. Your freaks who have been BRAIN WASHED

Interesting. What do you suppose we think of you idiots?

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

 I watched the Bundy men interviewed by Hannity last night, which was as friendly a forum for them as there could be.  Even with that:  They called our Country a "foreign nation".   They threatened violence, and said they  would do whatever they had to to get their way.    They and/or their supporters were armed with assault rifles among other arms.   They blamed the local sheriff for not disarming the federal officers.  They and their supports crowded around the federal officers and chanted at them trying to provoke them into martyering them. They claimed the laws of our Country don't apply to them because they are in their own Country, at least  in essence.  

With those views stated on  show that couldn't be confused with lefty media or trick questions,  what would we call the Bundy's if they were Muslim's? 

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Ladd Said:
 I watched the Bundy men interviewed by Hannity last night, which was as friendly a forum for them as there could be.  Even with that:  They called our Country a "foreign nation".   They threatened violence, and said they  would do whatever they had to to get their way.    They and/or their supporters were armed with assault rifles among other arms.   They blamed the local sheriff for not disarming the federal officers.  They and their supports crowded around the federal officers and chanted at them trying to provoke them into martyering them. They claimed the laws of our Country don't apply to them because they are in their own Country, at least  in essence.  

With those views stated on  show that couldn't be confused with lefty media or trick questions,  what would we call the Bundy's if they were Muslim's? 

Ouch!!!!!!!!!! Not much more to say after this post!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Ladd Said:
 I watched the Bundy men interviewed by Hannity last night, which was as friendly a forum for them as there could be.  Even with that:  They called our Country a "foreign nation".  I don;t think anyone has called the Bundy family articulate spokes people. Exactly what context was this comment made in ladd? Were they talking about a govt that will train military weapons on it's own people much  like foreign nations have?  They threatened violence, and said they  would do whatever they had to to get their way.   ladd I will pose you the same question I posed ron he avoided answering. What if there was a Federal agency that regulated how you make your living that you had to pay a fee to each year. For decades they used these fees to help you continue in how you make your living. Then all of a sudden they change their actions because of a lawsuit someone forced on them, they then continue to take your fees but use them to put you out of business. By law you can not be in business unless you pay their fees, but the fees are being used to force you out of business. What argument would YOU make in a court of law regarding the legality of having to pay the fees that once helped you stay in business that are now being used to force you out of business. What do you do when a court says tough shit.

I am sure as a lawyer you could/would draft a legal argument to fight to be able to stay in business. What would it be? They and/or their supporters were armed with assault rifles among other arms.  Arizona is an open carry state is it not? Is this not what the 2nd amendment was intended for??? They blamed the local sheriff for not disarming the federal officers.  Were there not sheriffs there that believed the BLM agents were trying to provoke the Bundys into firing or in the least attacking them and that the agents had crossed over a line? Who brought the gun fight to the Bundys ladd??? Did the BLM guys show up with slingshots?? At the start of the confrontation ladd who was armed with "assault weapons"  and snipers and who was not??? They and their supports crowded around the federal officers and chanted at them trying to provoke them into martyering them. Do you honestly think someone in the Bundy family WANTED to get killed???(maybe some crazy militia guy,) but do you think the Bundy family actually wanted to be shot and killed??They claimed the laws of our Country don't apply to them because they are in their own Country, at least  in essence.  In essence? Exactly what did they say in these regards? I have heard them say that when armed Federal agents aim sniper rifles and machine guns and use military weapons on their own citizens they did not beleive they were in the America that once was. I tend to agree?  How many threads on this site have basically said the very same thing?? How many threads speaking to Homeland Security buying billions of rounds of ammuntion and military vehicles have there been where people right here on FBO have said the very same thing?

With those views stated on  show that couldn't be confused with lefty media or trick questions,  what would we call the Bundy's if they were Muslim's? But you see ladd they are not, are they so what is your inflammatory comparison supposed to do? What if the Founding Fathers that broke the law to overturn a tyrannical govt and right unjust laws would have been Muslims?

What if the people that stood and broke the Jim Crow laws to right unjustice would have been Muslims at the time?

I am curious ladd, do you think the founding Fathers expected the citizens of this nations to meekly submit to what they believe was tyranny in our govt? Would you define a govt using someones own monies to force them out of legal business somewhat tyrannical?

What do you think the Founding Fathers would think of basically a "tax" being levied on someone by the govt and then the govt using that tax to force them out of  legal business such as ranching? What do you believe they would think of a nation and people that would allow their govt to do this and many of the other things that are happening right now?

Ron sits here and claims he does not like the actions of Sen Reid, he does not like the actions of the BLM and yet he decries someone that would actually stand up to them by breaking a law they believe unjust. And yet when it suits his purpose he defends unendingly someone elses breaking of a law simply because they and he believe it to be "unconstitutional". Cook had his day in court as well and was defeated so why is his position any more just or relevant than the Bundys?

And they have NOT had their "day in court" to establish the things Wayne Hage had as ron claims, the Bundys case was merely on the grazing fee nonpayment, nothing else. As a lawyer ladd you should be able to explain to ron how these cases maintain a narrow focus on what is being considered.

Who has claimed they are not in violation of the regulation requiring  paying BLM their fees? This nation was founded by people like the Bundys. Perhaps with better foresight and better articulated but the same belief systems that government be answerable to the people. So what are they to do when they have watched as 52 of their neighbors have been forced out of business (for what reason)

What people is the govt answering to that are forcing these  ranchers off these lands? Two or three radical enviromental groups that use the tax payers monies to file lawsuits forcing these actions? THEY represent "the people"? Developers greedy for these lands for themselves?

Who are these Federal agencies answerable to any more? EPA, BATF, BLM, IRS, HS, NSA, CIA, How many more Federal acronyms that have grown beyond control, or being answerable to the people exist any more? How many more have been added under Obama??

ladd you stated you agreed with several things Jon Scott said about this very thing at the end of the Hage video. So as someone in the judicial branch, how would YOU go about regaining control of these run way Federal agencies and stop the over reach of their crony heads such as Reids former senior aid at the helm of the BLM. ?

Continue being distracted into thinking this is about grazing fees and some turtles while the govt turns the yoke tighter.

After all banning assault weapons is about saving lives and protecting the citizens right?

 

 
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

actually there was quite a little to say after that post ron. To bad people like you will not consider it.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

ndraised Said:
wake up you RADICAL gun toting FREAKs. Even your "GOD" Bill Oreilly agrees with me.   You agree with people TAKING UP ARMS against the government. YOU SHOULD LOSS YOUR GUN RIGHTS then.. He had his day in court and you think they should stop the feds with their guns.. Your freaks who have been BRAIN WASHED

It would be interesting to see ndraised go tell his fellow Montanan's in the militias this.

Ripnem's picture
Ripnem
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/17/06

 http://clashdaily.com/2014/04/bundy-ranch-youre-told-video/ 

A short vid worth the few minutes. Sorry if you have to copy and paste, my linking skills are shotty at best.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Here is the video ripen, posted it back on page 5.

gst Said:
ron, do you know for a fact this family could not establish a link back on water rights to when they purchased them?

Take a look at this if you still believe this is about grazing rights and tortoises.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10
Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08
GST said,

After all banning assault weapons is about saving lives and protecting the citizens right?


Nope, guns save lives. Check it out.

http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=8860

Read the comments how people feel about certain law enforcement. The sentiments out there. Hmm.

doublebarrelsaloon's picture
doublebarrelsaloon
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/22/09

No need to find a militia member, any eastsider who works for a living would probably have a sufficient opinion. Then again if a guy wanted to start a good ol fashioned Jordan bar fight I'm not going to get in the way.

gst Said:

ndraised Said:
wake up you RADICAL gun toting FREAKs. Even your "GOD" Bill Oreilly agrees with me.   You agree with people TAKING UP ARMS against the government. YOU SHOULD LOSS YOUR GUN RIGHTS then.. He had his day in court and you think they should stop the feds with their guns.. Your freaks who have been BRAIN WASHED

It would be interesting to see ndraised go tell his fellow Montanan's in the militias this.

I dont go around guessing cup sizes either I just know a nice rack when I see one.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BringingTheRain Said:
 http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp

However, the theory that Reid's putative involvement in the Bundy dispute was motivated by a desire to somehow profit from the building of a solar plant falls flat in the face of two basic facts: The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government, and ENN gave up the solar project and terminated its agreement to buy land to house it as far back as June 2013:
A Chinese-backed company is pulling the plug on a multibillion-dollar solar project near Laughlin after it was unable to find customers for the power that would have been generated there, a Clark County spokesman said.

In a letter, an executive from ENN Mojave Energy LLC informed the county that the company was terminating its agreement to purchase 9,000 acres near Laughlin, stating that the "market will not support a project of this scale and nature at this time."

The company, a

 

subsidiary of ENN Group, described as the largest energy company in China, said it was unable to sign the necessary power purchase agreements to sell the energy generated from the solar plant to utilities in Nevada or neighboring states.

The project was broken down into phases, but if fully completed, it was expected to generate enough energy to power 200,000 homes with a price tag of $1 billion to $6 billion.

The move was hailed as a much-needed boost for economic development in the southern part of the state and was projected to create up to 2,200 permanent jobs.

Commissioners agreed to sell the land at $4.5 million — about a sixth of its appraised value — in December 2011 to jump-start the development, but they put in place an aggressive timeline that required ENN to secure the complicated power purchase agreements.

With the solar project now just a mirage, commissioners will discuss what to do with the 9,000 acres of county-owned land at their July 2 meeting.

Even the conservative Breitbart site debunked this conspiracy claim, noting:
Despite the obvious partisan gain to be had if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's son Rory (a failed 2010 Nevada gubernatorial candidate) had somehow been involved in a "land grab" affecting the Bundy family ranch operation — the facts just do not pan out as such. Indeed, Rory Reid did in fact have a hand in plans to reclassify federal lands for renewable energy developments. Just northeast of Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force Base, plans were drawn by Reid allies to potentially develop 5,717 acres of land for such use. While it would be fair to claim that such activity was in Bundy's relative neighborhood, the federal lands once leased by the family were more than 20 miles away, east of Overton, Nevada.

Some versions of this conspiracy theory mistake the proposed ENN Mojave Energy site with that of the Moapa Southern Paiute Solar project, but the latter's 250MW solar power plant is already under construction (so there is no need to grab land for it), and, as noted in Wildlife News, the Moapa plant is being built near the Moapa Indian Reservation and not on public land disputed by Cliven Bundy:
A cursory search shows a sudden explosion of articles claiming Nevada's senior senator, Harry Reid, wants Bundy's land (all Bundy actually owns is a melon farm) to build a solar plant to enrich himself and his son.

Bundy has been trespassing over 750,000 acres of U.S. public land to the south of Mesquite and Bunkerville, Nevada. Bundy's actual private property is his melon farm at Bunkerville, which looks like maybe 100 acres on Google Earth. There is a solar farm. But it is not on the huge swath of land Bundy is trespassing on. The solar facility is actually under construction near the Moapa Indian Reservation about ten miles closer to Las Vegas.

Likewise, another area currently being studied by BLM for the possible development of solar plants, commonly known as the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, is sometimes mistakenly thrown into the conspiracy theory mix by persons who point to a BLM report listing "Cattle Trespass Impacts" and claim that it documents the BLM's intent to use the disputed land for solar development:
Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.

But as explained at the Wildlife News, that isn't what the quoted blurb means:
There is some feeble effort to try to mitigate the damage to wildlife [caused by solar development]. Some of it is near the sites of these solar mirrors. This is called "primary mitigation." Some is in a place distant to the solar power site. This is called "secondary mitigation." Wildlife mitigation is things like planting grass wildlife need or like, development of new water sources for wildlife to drink, and restoration of rangeland overgrazed by cattle.

All this bureaucratic language means is that private groups like the Western Watersheds Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Gold Butte and Friends of Joshua Tree Forest don't think the damage from solar power plants located elsewhere can be mitigated at Gold Butte because the cattle will tromp all over it.


Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#Z4AUApk1674ITXQF.99
However, the theory that Reid's putative involvement in the Bundy dispute was motivated by a desire to somehow profit from the building of a solar plant falls flat in the face of two basic facts: The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government, and ENN gave up the solar project and terminated its agreement to buy land to house it as far back as June 2013:
A Chinese-backed company is pulling the plug on a multibillion-dollar solar project near Laughlin after it was unable to find customers for the power that would have been generated there, a Clark County spokesman said.

In a letter, an executive from ENN Mojave Energy LLC informed the county that the company was terminating its agreement to purchase 9,000 acres near Laughlin, stating that the "market will not support a project of this scale and nature at this time."

The company, a

 

subsidiary of ENN Group, described as the largest energy company in China, said it was unable to sign the necessary power purchase agreements to sell the energy generated from the solar plant to utilities in Nevada or neighboring states.

The project was broken down into phases, but if fully completed, it was expected to generate enough energy to power 200,000 homes with a price tag of $1 billion to $6 billion.

The move was hailed as a much-needed boost for economic development in the southern part of the state and was projected to create up to 2,200 permanent jobs.

Commissioners agreed to sell the land at $4.5 million — about a sixth of its appraised value — in December 2011 to jump-start the development, but they put in place an aggressive timeline that required ENN to secure the complicated power purchase agreements.

With the solar project now just a mirage, commissioners will discuss what to do with the 9,000 acres of county-owned land at their July 2 meeting.

Even the conservative Breitbart site debunked this conspiracy claim, noting:
Despite the obvious partisan gain to be had if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's son Rory (a failed 2010 Nevada gubernatorial candidate) had somehow been involved in a "land grab" affecting the Bundy family ranch operation — the facts just do not pan out as such. Indeed, Rory Reid did in fact have a hand in plans to reclassify federal lands for renewable energy developments. Just northeast of Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force Base, plans were drawn by Reid allies to potentially develop 5,717 acres of land for such use. While it would be fair to claim that such activity was in Bundy's relative neighborhood, the federal lands once leased by the family were more than 20 miles away, east of Overton, Nevada.

Some versions of this conspiracy theory mistake the proposed ENN Mojave Energy site with that of the Moapa Southern Paiute Solar project, but the latter's 250MW solar power plant is already under construction (so there is no need to grab land for it), and, as noted in Wildlife News, the Moapa plant is being built near the Moapa Indian Reservation and not on public land disputed by Cliven Bundy:
A cursory search shows a sudden explosion of articles claiming Nevada's senior senator, Harry Reid, wants Bundy's land (all Bundy actually owns is a melon farm) to build a solar plant to enrich himself and his son.

Bundy has been trespassing over 750,000 acres of U.S. public land to the south of Mesquite and Bunkerville, Nevada. Bundy's actual private property is his melon farm at Bunkerville, which looks like maybe 100 acres on Google Earth. There is a solar farm. But it is not on the huge swath of land Bundy is trespassing on. The solar facility is actually under construction near the Moapa Indian Reservation about ten miles closer to Las Vegas.

Likewise, another area currently being studied by BLM for the possible development of solar plants, commonly known as the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone, is sometimes mistakenly thrown into the conspiracy theory mix by persons who point to a BLM report listing "Cattle Trespass Impacts" and claim that it documents the BLM's intent to use the disputed land for solar development:
Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.

But as explained at the Wildlife News, that isn't what the quoted blurb means:
There is some feeble effort to try to mitigate the damage to wildlife [caused by solar development]. Some of it is near the sites of these solar mirrors. This is called "primary mitigation." Some is in a place distant to the solar power site. This is called "secondary mitigation." Wildlife mitigation is things like planting grass wildlife need or like, development of new water sources for wildlife to drink, and restoration of rangeland overgrazed by cattle.

All this bureaucratic language means is that private groups like the Western Watersheds Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Gold Butte and Friends of Joshua Tree Forest don't think the damage from solar power plants located elsewhere can be mitigated at Gold Butte because the cattle will tromp all over it.


Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#Z4AUApk1674ITXQF.99

btr, do YOU understand mitigation?

snoopes also seems to not understand mitigation. They also seem more than ready to dismiss the pretty straight forward language that was once on the BLM website that once this situation escalated and information begin getting out was removed, that provides a glimpse into the motive of removing the cattle from these lands so they DO qualify for mitigation. 

Big surprise that "Wild Life News" would have an "explaination.
And that groups like Western Watershed Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Gold Butte, and Friends of Joshua Tree Forrest would dismiss these pretty connected facts.

All that is being said here is that with the cattle "tramping" all over Gold Butte, it would not qualify for "mitigation" of the Solar farm area. Most prosecutors would suggest that simply increases the motive for why these cattle were being removed.

Show were snoopes uncovered documents saying these lands would NOT be used for mitigation even if the cattle were removed and you might have something.

snoopes seems to have little understanding that even if Gold Butte is not "Bundys land" these ranches have relied on these Federal lands and the multiple use laws they were originally created with for generations to make their living. Somehow they seem to think that this is somehow about a 100 acre melon patch. They somehow seem willing to dismiss the history that occurs all across the west of how this 100 acres came to be deeded lands while hundreds of thousands of acres surrounding it are govt. They seem not to understand how land usage is tied to water rights in these western lands.

But as explained at the Wildlife News, that isn't what the quoted blurb means:
There is some feeble effort to try to mitigate the damage to wildlife [caused by solar development]. Some of it is near the sites of these solar mirrors. This is called "primary mitigation." Some is in a place distant to the solar power site. This is called "secondary mitigation." Wildlife mitigation is things like planting grass wildlife need or like, development of new water sources for wildlife to drink, and restoration of rangeland overgrazed by cattle.

All this bureaucratic language means is that private groups like the Western Watersheds Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Friends of Gold Butte and Friends of Joshua Tree Forest don't think the damage from solar power plants located elsewhere can be mitigated at Gold Butte because the cattle will tromp all over it.


Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#Z4AUApk1674ITXQF.99

So why would neither "Wildlife News" or snoopes mention or explain why the BLM would remove the documents on their website that spoke to the need to remove cattle from the Gold Butte area in order for it to qualify for mitigation once this stand off started?.

I wonder if snoopes has some fact checking that the sale of these lands for development of housing and solar farms and the redrawing of desert tortoise refuge boundries to accommodate this development has less impact on the desert tortoise than other land uses.

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

It sounds like things got a little western:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/58165/gun-law-nevada-agents-yield-man-called-bundy

Many of the posters here on FBO get their news from the THE WILDLIFE NEWS
Anyways, that is where Bringintherain's snopes piece got their info.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/

What is the Wildlife News? Who publish's that?

http://www.wildlife.org/publications/wildlife-news-briefs

???????????????????

Maybe it is time to investigate certain affiliations between State/Federal agencies and their surrogate non-profits.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:
gst again this has been through the courts and he lost, Hage had the same complaint and proved his case!

A couple of posts later..................................................................................................

Hardwaterman Said:
 So again Bundy and Hage are not a equal comparison of events, one chose to stop paying and continue to graze the other continued to pay and fought to have his rights restored and won.

Hardwaterman Said:

There is nothing more to say regarding him. Now if you want to make this an issue of the BLM behavior and leave Bundy and his failed court attempts out, fine, that I would like to explore, Hage case and a few others as well are good examples of shedding light on the Gov when they over reach. But do not hang Bundy from the flag claiming injustice when he has lost and others have won.

That is why I have called you a dumbass
!

As a decreed "dumbass" ron I admit I am confused here.

Are the cases the "same complaint" as you first claimed or are they "not an equal comparison of events" as you later claimed?

Which story are you going with here ron?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Fritz the Cat Said:
It sounds like things got a little western:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/58165/gun-law-nevada-agents-yield-man-called-bundy

Many of the posters here on FBO get their news from the THE WILDLIFE NEWS
Anyways, that is where Bringintherain's snopes piece got their info.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/

What is the Wildlife News? Who publish's that?

http://www.wildlife.org/publications/wildlife-news-briefs

???????????????????

Maybe it is time to investigate certain affiliations between State/Federal agencies and their surrogate non-profits.

Considering the Center for Biological Diversity had threatened the BLM with a lawsuit if they did not remove Bundys cattle from these ranges to "protect" the desert tortoise that had already been killed by the hundreds by the very Center meant to save themshortly before the BLM swopoped in with armed agents and snipers.................................................................................................................perhaps it is time to pull back the covers on these orgs.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/desert-torto...

Roundup of Trespassing Cattle Begins in Nevada Desert

Cows Have Been Illegally Grazing in Gold Butte Area for More Than Two Decades

LAS VEGAS— The Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and other federal agencies today began the long-delayed and long-awaited roundup and impoundment of cattle that have illegally grazed the Gold Butte area south of Mesquite, unmanaged and free of charge, for more than two decades. Rancher Cliven Bundy has been locked in a dispute with the BLM since 1993.

“Again and again federal judges have said the BLM has the right and duty to remove cattle trespassing in the Gold Butte area to protect desert tortoises and other imperiled species,” said Rob Mrowka, a Nevada-based senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, which had filed a notice of intent to sue over the lack of action being taken by the federal agencies. “We’re heartened and thankful that the agencies are finally living up to their stewardship duty. The Gold Butte area has been officially designated as critical habitat for threatened tortoises — meaning the area is essential to their long-term survival as a species.”

Note the "critical habitat designation"  by the USF&WS. This gives them the authority to restrict or ban grazing on these Federal acres. So they now have another tool to remove these cattle from these lands and use them as mitigating lands for the Chinese solar deal 20 miles away.

Wonder if snoopes is "fact checking" on that?

So here is my question if THIS area grazing cattle is "essential to their long-term survival as a species" I wonder if the areas sold to Chinese developers far below appraised values for their solar developments 20 miles away are as well??

wonder if snoopes is "fact checking " that

Or do these development companies simply write a big enough check to buy off these enviroment orgs concerns?

Or perhaps they just buy off a Senator to redraw the boundries of the Desert Tortoises "habitat"?

http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?46123-Corruption-most-rotte.....

The BLM’s official reason for encircling the Bundy family with sniper teams and helicopters was to protect the endangered desert tortoise, which the agency has previously been killing in mass due to “budget constraints.”

“A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher; they want his land,” journalist Dana Loesch wrote. “The tortoise wasn’t of concern when [U.S. Senator] Harry Reid worked with BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore.

“Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests,” she added. “BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area.”

“If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.”

btr, has snoopes "fact checked" this?

Apparently others are wondering if this is really about a rancher not paying grazing fees as well.

http://nationalreport.net/issa-launches-federal-investigation-obamas-inv...

Perhaps he may not be a big enough Obama donor either.

Apparently the 52 other ranchers in this area already removed were not as well.


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

cynical Said:
So what would prevent the federal government from doing the end around on land granted to people in the Homestead Act?

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/90000-acres-of-texas-ranchers-land...

Apparently deeded land that has had property taxes paid on it for years.

Might bear watching.

Pages