Page 99 of 142 FirstFirst ... 4989979899100101109 ... LastLast
Results 981 to 990 of 1412

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

  1. #981
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,785

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    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
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  2. #982
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,040

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    No, only about 40% of the colonists supported the patriot cause and considered themselves patriots.
    So forget all of American history and replace it with your opinion lol.

  3. #983
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,040

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

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    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.

  4. #984
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

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

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    The fine is because he had no permit. Dont believe me go read the judgement against Cliven.
    Just a question, should regulatory agencies be armed like the military, or a SWAT team?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #985
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,319

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

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    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.

  6. #986
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,040

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

    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.

  7. #987
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,728

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    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 by danarhea; 04-17-14 at 02:07 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  8. #988
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,319

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    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?

  9. #989
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,003

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

    Quote Originally Posted by longview View Post
    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

  10. #990
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,319

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

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