Chemists have Solutions.
The use of force, and the show of force was completely unnecessary for this event. If a kid skateboarding in a area off limits to skateboarding, you don't involve the swat team. This was a clear show of force by the BLM. Completely unnecessary. This should be handled by the courts and our legal system. I know what you are going to say...So is our legal system failed? This isn't exactly a drug cartel. This is a guy with cows. He opens a gate and they eat grass.BLM and (the National Park Service) have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter administratively and judicially
You will notice he no problem paying his grazing fees to Clark County. He also feels his family owns this property. This clearly should be settled in court. There was no need for a "military" type operation on grazing cattle.
"Say what you will about George W. Bush, but he wouldn't have stood for Russian aggression in Ukraine. He'd have invaded New Zealand by now." - Donal O'Keeffe
I am guessing the rancher and the government officials are both refusing to compromise or budge. Which leads to things like this.
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
― Stephen R. Covey
Things like this need to happen for anything to change. The federal govt was never given the power to seize state lands for the purpose of protecting animals. No one needs to be violent, but we do need lots of non compliance.
So, he quit paying for the use or our land, then, when we decided not to allow cattle grazing, he kept using our land for that purpose anyway.
Much like a tenant who quit paying rent, then, when the building was condemned to make way for a new freeway, kept living in the apartment anyway.
Somehow, I fail to see why he should not be evicted.
I would grandfather his grazing privelages (not rights) in the area. In addition, I am not a big fan of overzealous endangered species laws.
At the same time, I have little sympathy for this guy. The rancher exempted himself (surprise?) from paying not one, but five years worth of grazing fees before the ban on cattle. The "evil" Feds are not going "retard". Rather, they have been pretty patient.
The best solution would have been to simply:
Grandfather this rancher's access to the land (he is third generation) at his historic use levels; but if and only if he pays the five back years of grazing fees.
I hate paying toll fees on the roads that I use. Maybe I"ll just exempt myself... .
Last edited by Cryptic; 04-10-14 at 09:50 AM.
File this in the "wtf are we doing spending money to keep a guy from grazing his cattle in the middle of nowhere" bin.