Page 3 of 142 FirstFirst 123451353103 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 1412

Thread: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

  1. #21
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    52,286

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    The federal government owns too much land in Nevada, it's ****ing outrageous. The governor should call out the national guard and seize it.
    Yes, what a reasonable action to take, forums poster American. You are definitely a reasonable person and I applaud your contribution.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #22
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,899

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by CycloneWanderer View Post
    File this in the "wtf are we doing spending money to keep a guy from grazing his cattle in the middle of nowhere" bin.
    I hate paying toll fees on the public roads that I use. Maybe I"ll just exempt myself.

    I could justify it by claiming that I have some mystical intrinsic right to travel and that the government is going "full retard" by telling me otherwise.

    That aside, I would grandfather the ranchers grazing privelages, but only if he paid the five years of grazing fees that he owes.

  3. #23
    Guru
    soot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-17 @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,308

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    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 agree completely.

    Though I also agree (with others) that the show of force used there in conjunction with "Operation Liberate Cattle" far exceed any threat, real or wildly imagined, that I can imagine the government could reasonably articulate.

    There were fewer federal employees involved in the bin Laden raid.

    Hell, there may have been fewer, more lightly armed men involved in the Battle of Fallujah.

    Overkill, and very expensive overkill at that.

    The tab for that farce had to run, easily, several hundred thousand dollars, if not into $1M.

    And then the feds go out and spend an additional ("estimated", tell me that they probably didn't grossly underestimate here) $966,000 to have Halliburton or Blackwater come in an round up the herd for seizure.

    In part all of this in order to recoup $1.1M in land use fees.

    So far, at an absolute minimum, the government has $3M+ sunk into this.

    (With a history of twenty years worth of legal battles between Bundy and the government dating back to the late 1980s I'm sure the government has already spent a great deal of money on this issue but I can't reliably even attempt to quantify it so why bother?)

    And for what?

    The government estimates that this guy's herd runs about 900 head.

    From what I've found just sort of buzzing around the Interwebs a rancher is looking at a profit of just over $1000 a head for free range cattle, assuming he had the means to process the beef himself.

    I doubt very much the government just happens to have a vacant abattoir sitting around in Nevada just waiting to be fired up and put into operation so I expect the government would have to hire a contractor at exorbitantly inflated expense in order to have the herd liquidated.

    So maybe, MAYBE the government recoups $500,000 of their (very conservatively estimatted) $3 million expense.

    And that assumes that Bundy rolls over takes his reaming like a loyal subject.

    But what if he continues his fight in court.

    What if the State of Nevada decides to fight the states' rights issue, as they appear to be doing, and now the feds have to compete with the resources a State can bring to bear in such a situation rather that just having to contend with the reach of one miserable little rancher?

    Now we're talking million of dollars, if not tens of millions, on each side, of taxpayer money being pumped down this sewer as the thing gets hashed out in numerous courts over a period of years.

    And all the while the potential exists, I don't know how likely such an outcome would be but the potential certainly does exist, that at some point the State of Nevada or the rancher win in court and the government is out $15 million? $20 million maybe? Maybe more?

    It seems like a very ham-handed way of putting the cart before the horse.

    The legal fight should happen first and THEN the enforcement action should happen.
    “Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
    For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
    And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
    And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”

  4. #24
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    01-19-18 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    13,009

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    **** that tortoise.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  5. #25
    Tavern Bartender
    #NeverOprah
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    01-19-18 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,610

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Yes, what a reasonable action to take, forums poster American. You are definitely a reasonable person and I applaud your contribution.
    Go look how much of Nevada the federal government controls, then get back to me.

    291 - Federal Lands in the US | Strange Maps | Big Think
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #26
    Tavern Bartender
    #NeverOprah
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    01-19-18 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,610

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
    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.



    Yea, and do what with it? Sell it on the open market? The Turner Foundation may well buy it and then these ranchers would have absolutely no access to it as it would be the private property of a more successful enterpreneur.

    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... .
    Those are state roads, not federal. But thanks for the response.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #27
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    42,108

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    I agree completely.

    Though I also agree (with others) that the show of force used there in conjunction with "Operation Liberate Cattle" far exceed any threat, real or wildly imagined, that I can imagine the government could reasonably articulate.

    There were fewer federal employees involved in the bin Laden raid.

    Hell, there may have been fewer, more lightly armed men involved in the Battle of Fallujah.

    Overkill, and very expensive overkill at that.

    The tab for that farce had to run, easily, several hundred thousand dollars, if not into $1M.

    And then the feds go out and spend an additional ("estimated", tell me that they probably didn't grossly underestimate here) $966,000 to have Halliburton or Blackwater come in an round up the herd for seizure.

    In part all of this in order to recoup $1.1M in land use fees.

    So far, at an absolute minimum, the government has $3M+ sunk into this.

    (With a history of twenty years worth of legal battles between Bundy and the government dating back to the late 1980s I'm sure the government has already spent a great deal of money on this issue but I can't reliably even attempt to quantify it so why bother?)

    And for what?

    The government estimates that this guy's herd runs about 900 head.

    From what I've found just sort of buzzing around the Interwebs a rancher is looking at a profit of just over $1000 a head for free range cattle, assuming he had the means to process the beef himself.

    I doubt very much the government just happens to have a vacant abattoir sitting around in Nevada just waiting to be fired up and put into operation so I expect the government would have to hire a contractor at exorbitantly inflated expense in order to have the herd liquidated.

    So maybe, MAYBE the government recoups $500,000 of their (very conservatively estimatted) $3 million expense.

    And that assumes that Bundy rolls over takes his reaming like a loyal subject.

    But what if he continues his fight in court.

    What if the State of Nevada decides to fight the states' rights issue, as they appear to be doing, and now the feds have to compete with the resources a State can bring to bear in such a situation rather that just having to contend with the reach of one miserable little rancher?

    Now we're talking million of dollars, if not tens of millions, on each side, of taxpayer money being pumped down this sewer as the thing gets hashed out in numerous courts over a period of years.

    And all the while the potential exists, I don't know how likely such an outcome would be but the potential certainly does exist, that at some point the State of Nevada or the rancher win in court and the government is out $15 million? $20 million maybe? Maybe more?

    It seems like a very ham-handed way of putting the cart before the horse.

    The legal fight should happen first and THEN the enforcement action should happen.
    Wasting money is what the government does best. Yes, surely to goodness this guy could have been evicted from our land at a much lower cost. It had to be done, of course, but could have been done far more efficiently.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #28
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    42,108

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Go look how much of Nevada the federal government controls, then get back to me.

    291 - Federal Lands in the US | Strange Maps | Big Think
    We, the people, own quite a lot of land here in California, too. So what? Does that mean we should just give it away?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  9. #29
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,899

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Those are state roads, not federal. But thanks for the response.
    Does it really make a difference?

    You seem to be missing a key point. I dont have an intrinsic right to use "X". I maybe given the privelage to use "X", if I pay a fee. I can't exempt myself from the fee (as neat as an idea as that may sound). It really does not matter who owns or maintains "X". The core concept is that I dont own it.

    This rancher and the Occupiers seem to have alot in common- both conclude that they are inherently owed something that they are not. Likewise, both seem to conclude that being a member of certain social groups exempts them from paying use fees (University tuition / grazing fees). Though I have far more respect for the rancher than I do for most, if not all Occupiers, he is not owed access to that land. He should be able to use it though- providing he pays the same fee as anybody else.
    Last edited by Cryptic; 04-10-14 at 02:02 PM.

  10. #30
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    01-19-18 @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,238

    Re: Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    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.
    Its not your land, thats his position. Whether he paid the ransom or not at some point isnt really relevant.

Page 3 of 142 FirstFirst 123451353103 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •