• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

So this means that he's now the posterboy loved by all liberals?

Must be. According to Freedomfromall's post:

What gets me about people openly supporting Cliven Bundy is what they are supporting: "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing,"

he must be one of those America hating liberals we hear about.
 
The irony will likely be that the turtles could only thrive where there was active cattle operations.
The cattle were rendering the vegetation into something the turtles could eat.:mrgreen:

Yes, and people who support Bundy seem to thrive on the same sort of food.
 
Yes, and people who support Bundy seem to thrive on the same sort of food.
I support Bundy in a very limited fashion - standing up to brown shirt heavy handed federal government tactics. His legal issues, the judgements against him - they are all of his doing and he will need to answer for those somehow.
 
No, only about 40% of the colonists supported the patriot cause and considered themselves patriots.

So, if they'd had an election to decide whether to have a revolution, the US would still be a part of the British Commonwealth, like Canada. Interesting.
 
So, if they'd had an election to decide whether to have a revolution, the US would still be a part of the British Commonwealth, like Canada. Interesting.

But just like Canada, Australia and New Zealand it would be an independent nation with Her Majesty Elizabeth II only a symbolic head of state. We might be even more of a democratic nation than we are today.

The US is an oligarchy, study concludes - Telegraph
 
I think there is a distinction between the fee and the fine.
The fee is the normal charge, the fine was for grazing cattle on protected land.
If their was a fine, there could no longer be a permit, because if he had a permit
there could be no fine.

The fine is because he had no permit. Dont believe me go read the judgement against Cliven.
 
The fine is because he had no permit. Dont believe me go read the judgement against Cliven.
I have no doubt the fine is because he did not have a permit,
The question is why he did not have a permit?
If he choose to not pay his grazing fees, that is one thing,
but if they would not allow him to pay, that is something else.
 
United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S-
98-531-JBR (RJJ) (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), “the public lands in Nevada are the property of the
United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when
Mexico ceded the land to the United States.”

"Finally, the Court finds that Bundy’s objections to the United States’ Motion, many of
which have been disposed of in prior proceedings, are without merit. The Court has stated 4
unequivocally on numerous occasions that it has jurisdiction to hear this case, and that the
Allotment is owned by the United States and managed by the DOI through the BLM and the NPS.
Bundy’s repeated suggestions to the contrary are entirely unavailing.
"


The cattle will be removed and the money owed will be attained one way or another. I suspect that the family ranch will be sold to satisfy the debt.
 
One thing should be noted here, apparently Bundy hasn't refused to pay the fees, he's tried to pay them to to Clarke County NV. They have just refused to take the payments. So he's not exactly a deadbeat. He stopped paying the BLM because they were suppose to be there to assist ranchers in managing their land, when the BLM stopped doing that he stopped paying them. That sounds entirely reasonable to me. If you pay someone to do something and they stop doing it you should not have to pay them. Doesn't matter if its a private company or a government agency. He did still try and pay the fees that were owed to a different government agency though, they just refused to accept the payment.

And that is the problem. Bundy tried to pay to Nevada because he does not recognize the Federal government. And that is HIS problem. He is one of those soverignty nuts, and because he chose to graze on Federal land, he was fined for it. His problems are of his own making. And, should a riot ensue, in which people are injured, he should be arrested and put on trial for inciting that riot.

 
Last edited:
And that is the problem. Bundy tried to pay to Nevada because he does not recognize the Federal government. And that is HIS problem. He is one of those soverignty nuts, and because he chose to graze on Federal land, he was fined for it. His problems are of his own making. And, should a riot ensue, in which people are injured, he should be arrested and put on trial for inciting that riot.
My problem with this whole story, is that Bundy had been paying the fees for his entire adult life
up till 1993. He even managed to get the payment to the right place, and it was accepted.
The question is what changed in 1993?
The BLM declared the public land would no longer be leased for grazing,
And bought back permits. Bundy refused to sell his back, and it was revoked.
I assume Bundy was a tenant in good standing up until the BLM changed the use of the land.
The question becomes, If the Government licenses usage of public resources for a fee,
How much notice do they need to give to change that agreement?
 
My problem with this whole story, is that Bundy had been paying the fees for his entire adult life
up till 1993. He even managed to get the payment to the right place, and it was accepted.
The question is what changed in 1993?
The BLM declared the public land would no longer be leased for grazing,
And bought back permits. Bundy refused to sell his back, and it was revoked.
I assume Bundy was a tenant in good standing up until the BLM changed the use of the land.
The question becomes, If the Government licenses usage of public resources for a fee,
How much notice do they need to give to change that agreement?

Look up 43 CFR 4160.4 and 4.470.

Appeals Process
When changes, or renewal of grazing permits are necessary, allotment evaluations are completeted and a Proposed Decision is issued under 43 CFR 4160, starting a 15-day protest period. The Proposed Decision is sent to the permittee(s) or lessee(s) and other affected interests and interested publics. If disagreement exists on an allotment, permittee(s) or lessee(s) and other affected interests may protest the Proposed Decision. BLM considers all protests filed and then issues a Final Decision, starting a 30-day appeal period. If disagreement still exists with the Final Decision, the permittee(s) or lessee(s) and other affected interests may appeal under 43 CFR 4160.4 and 4.470 for the livestock portion and 43 CFR 4.21 for the wild horse and burro portion, and the wildlife portions of the decision. At the conclusion of the decision process the management actions are implemented and monitoring continues until the next evaluation.

Decision Process
 
Look up 43 CFR 4160.4 and 4.470.

Appeals Process
When changes, or renewal of grazing permits are necessary, allotment evaluations are completeted and a Proposed Decision is issued under 43 CFR 4160, starting a 15-day protest period. The Proposed Decision is sent to the permittee(s) or lessee(s) and other affected interests and interested publics. If disagreement exists on an allotment, permittee(s) or lessee(s) and other affected interests may protest the Proposed Decision. BLM considers all protests filed and then issues a Final Decision, starting a 30-day appeal period. If disagreement still exists with the Final Decision, the permittee(s) or lessee(s) and other affected interests may appeal under 43 CFR 4160.4 and 4.470 for the livestock portion and 43 CFR 4.21 for the wild horse and burro portion, and the wildlife portions of the decision. At the conclusion of the decision process the management actions are implemented and monitoring continues until the next evaluation.

Decision Process

43 CFR 4160.4 - Appeals. | LII / Legal Information Institute
It sure sound like he is out of appeals,
The only exception might be if BLM made a timing mistake when they revoked his permit.
Like if the the first fines were issued before the appeals process was completed.
 
I have no doubt the fine is because he did not have a permit,
The question is why he did not have a permit?
If he choose to not pay his grazing fees, that is one thing,
but if they would not allow him to pay, that is something else.

Cliven Bundy claims that he refused to pay the permit to the Federal Government because he claims that the US government does not exist. Again look at the court records.
 
Cliven Bundy claims that he refused to pay the permit to the Federal Government because he claims that the US government does not exist. Again look at the court records.
To me it sounds like he had a permit in good standing.
The BLM changed the land use, and set about buying back the unused portions of the permits.
Bundy refused to sell, and the permit was revoked.
I assumed he appealed, through the appeal process and lost,(big surprise!)
I think the lesson here, be careful who you do business with.
The Government can change it's mind in regards to a contract, and the affected
business has no recourse.
I just hope they don't decide to revoke permits to access the interstate,
because the western concrete lizard is endangered.:mrgreen:
 
To me it sounds like he had a permit in good standing.
The BLM changed the land use, and set about buying back the unused portions of the permits.
Bundy refused to sell, and the permit was revoked.
I assumed he appealed, through the appeal process and lost,(big surprise!)
I think the lesson here, be careful who you do business with.
The Government can change it's mind in regards to a contract, and the affected
business has no recourse.
I just hope they don't decide to revoke permits to access the interstate,
because the western concrete lizard is endangered.:mrgreen:

Now the Feds just need to take Bundy's ranch via eminent domain, force him to sell put that money towards the fines he owes, and Bundy becomes homeless, foodstamp user looking for HUD housing in downtown Overton NM.
 
Just a question, should regulatory agencies be armed like the military, or a SWAT team?

I see that you are ignorant of the BLM Office of Law Enforcement & Security existence. I suggest that you spend a little time researching the BLM Office of Law Enforcement & Security..


The fact is that the Bundy's are anti US Government extremists that have made it clear that they think that they are above the law. They wont comply with court orders and CLiven is on record asserting that he believes the the US Government doesnt even exist. The Bundy's have been saying all along that they will use force if necessary to keep their cattle on that land. The BLM would be fools to not show up wielding protective gear and weapons.

SO show me where it is illegal for Federal law enforcement to have the weapons that they had in Nevada. DO you even know what exact weapons that they had? Or are you just making big assumptions? I mean if citizens can point loaded high power weapons at the BLM what the hell are you crying about if the BLM has their own weapons? Shouldnt they have weapons if the citizens show up with weapons in hand? Or do you think that Law Enforcement should just have billy clubs?
 
43 CFR 4160.4 - Appeals. | LII / Legal Information Institute
It sure sound like he is out of appeals,
The only exception might be if BLM made a timing mistake when they revoked his permit.
Like if the the first fines were issued before the appeals process was completed.

The BLM banned bundy from any grazing permits after Bundy refused to pay the fees and had a court ruling to remove the cattle and he refused to do so. Cliven is the person that made the BLM.

So why dont you show us your source that is evidence that the BLM revoked Bundy's permit?
 
The BLM banned bundy from any grazing permits after Bundy refused to pay the fees and had a court ruling to remove the cattle and he refused to do so. Cliven is the person that made the BLM.

So why dont you show us your source that is evidence that the BLM revoked Bundy's permit?
Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government
The quote from March 1993.
Bundy has repeatedly been fined for grazing his cattle on the protected land, fines he has not paid since 1993. The Bureau of Land Management, which oversees about 800 grazing areas in Nevada, responded by revoking his permit. Bundy has not applied for a new one.
The fact that they revoked his permit, says he had a permit.
They were fining him for grazing cattle on protected land, which he had a permit to do.
I wonder if they offered fair market value, when they offered to buy his permit?
 
Back
Top Bottom