• 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

Cryptic said:
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... .
Click to expand...

Those are state roads, not federal. But thanks for the response.
 
soot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
American said:
Those are state roads, not federal. But thanks for the response.
Click to expand...

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:
Dittohead not! said:
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.
Click to expand...

Its not your land, thats his position. Whether he paid the ransom or not at some point isnt really relevant.
 
Cryptic said:
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.
Click to expand...

The federal govt does have the power to run postal roads. It doesnt have the power to take land from states to protect animals.
 
jonny5 said:
Its not your land, thats his position. Whether he paid the ransom or not at some point isnt really relevant.
Click to expand...

It is our land. He's wrong. He's a squatter who needs to be evicted.
 
jonny5 said:
The federal govt does have the power to run postal roads. It doesnt have the power to take land from states to protect animals.
Click to expand...

The and was not takne for Nevada for the purpose of protecting animals per se. To my knowledge, the federal government has always retained the right to own property and to determine the rules of usage for that property.

Face it, the rancher, like the Occupiers have lot of core principals in common (though one is right wing and the others left wing in orientation).

jonny5 said:
Not very libertarian of you.
Click to expand...
Though I am not a liberatian, I dont see any contradictions. The land is not his and neither he nor the occupiers can exempt themselves from the fees the owners charge use a particular recesource.
 
jonny5 said:
The 10th amendment.
Click to expand...

The 10th doesn't give him free grazing rights on land he doesn't own. Whether it is state, local or federal public lands.
 
jonny5 said:
The 10th amendment.
Click to expand...

The 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

What part exactly are you attributing to the farmers claim?
 
Am I the only one thinking that setting aside 600,000 acres - something like 950 sq miles - of land to protect a tortoise, which isn't even endangered just "vulnerable", is a little overkill?
 
Gaius46 said:
Am I the only one thinking that setting aside 600,000 acres - something like 950 sq miles - of land to protect a tortoise, which isn't even endangered just "vulnerable", is a little overkill?
Click to expand...

To normal common sense thinking people yes. However, the issue really isn't centering on the tortoise though that's the excuse being used, it's really about control. I'm not sure why the farmer should expect his cows to graze when he stopped paying for that right, and secondly, when he was told to stop. I appreciate his position and yes he's being squeezed out of a living. The real issue here is about government control and he's making a stand - again - something I can appreciate. This is what happens when government gets too big for it's own good. Eventually, blood will be spilled - maybe not in this instance but sooner or later.
 
From the OP"
"The fight involves a 600,000-acre area under BLM control called Gold Butte, near the Utah border. The vast and rugged land is the habitat of the protected desert tortoise, and the land has been off-limits for cattle since 1998. Five years before that, when grazing was legal, Bundy stopped paying federal fees for the right."

BLM land is public land. As a taxpayer I object to someone using the land for free for a commerical business. It is not Bundy's ranch/land. It is our land. I have no objection to ranchers paying to graze on public land when the grazing is managed. At times I feel the t&e act is unfair to historical usages of the land.

that said. I feel the feds need to not over react. The rancher also needs to not over react. Bundy needs to understand that BLM must follow the laws passed by Congress and the land is not his.
 
Cryptic said:
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... .
Click to expand...


Well since those are public lands, plenty of us do choose to see the tortoises survive and not see the rest of the range degraded by illegal grazing. It's landed that belongs to everyone and he's cheating all of us, financially and environmentally.
 
Lursa said:
Well since those are public lands, plenty of us do choose to see the tortoises survive and not see the rest of the range degraded by illegal grazing. It's landed that belongs to everyone and he's cheating all of us, financially and environmentally.
Click to expand...

Actually that's the state of Nevada's land and they are backing the rancher.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Actually that's the state of Nevada's land and they are backing the rancher.
Click to expand...

Why would the BLM be managing and issuing grazing permits on State Lands?

BLM land is federal, just as the National Forest and National Parks are federal.
 
mike2810 said:
Why would the BLM be managing and issuing grazing permits on State Lands?

BLM land is federal, just as the National Forest and National Parks are federal.
Click to expand...

The state is taking issue with the feds owning the land which I believe in that particular case was taken by the feds from the state. The fight with the rancher seems just to be the vehicle the state is using.
 
PirateMk1 said:
The state is taking issue with the feds owning the land which I believe in that particular case was taken by the feds from the state. The fight with the rancher seems just to be the vehicle the state is using.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that to be the case. Though I could be wrong, I think it has been designated as conservation zone and BLM has been appointed to adminster it, but that it still "belongs" to the state of NV
 
Do cows eat tortoises or am I missing something? Think of this like foodstamps for destitute cattle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom