• 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

The federal G owns over 22% of all lands in the US. But they have to send in armed officers over some cows? Yea, they aint looking for a fight.
This is a fishing expedition by the G to see how far they can go and how much push back they will get.

This turf war is all about power, not about cattle or tortoise, and the kind of power the writers of the Constitution warned about and why they passed the 2nd Amendment. Now many arms of the government are getting their own SWAT teams. Another Waco waiting to happen.

Johnny, Get Your Gun-Free Zone :: SteynOnline
 
Well, the feds stole almost half his cattle so, hopefully they either return his property or pay him.

That is dicy since the cattle were confiscated and moved for tresspassing. he will have to plead that case in court that the cows be
returned or he is given fair compensation.

of course they could rule that the cows are collatteral for the grazing that they did.

what is left is basically court and the court is not going to side on his side and in fact they have ruled about 3 or 4 times against him.
 
or take it out of the grazing fees he hasn't been paying for the past couple of decades.

For the government to spend that much money, and to use the amount of force they are using, those grazing fees must number in the millions of dollars.
 
If this guy can't afford to hold all his cattle on his own farm then he should get rid of some of the cattle.

my grandfather had a 116 acre farm and had tons of pasture line for his cows and horses.
.

A "farm" in a grassy eastern climate only needs a few acres of pasture to support livestock. You are completely disregarding the difference in the climate west of the Rockies.
 
So ranchers should just be able to do what they want for free according to you? Hell noone consulted me or my family about toll roads, so I guess I should just be able to blow passed them right?

Ranchers were doing it for free until grazing fees were introduced in Taylor Grazing Act (1934). Also your claim of toll roads are in a different ball park for two reasons. 1) You don't have to use them unlike having to live in a region where 84% of the land for grazing is owned by Government 2) Toll roads are operated as a Build–operate–transfer. A private company gets rights to build a road and operate it receiving no public funding. The other is Public-Benefit Corporation which are given different tax status and only receive funds to expand service.
 
.

A "farm" in a grassy eastern climate only needs a few acres of pasture to support livestock. You are completely disregarding the difference in the climate west of the Rockies.

This has nothing to do with the topic.

I have no problem in supporting personal peoples rights. the difference is that this guy is thwarting or trying to thwart the law.
I also do not support the government putting in a national guard defense near this guys house.

so there is some give and take.
 
Bottom line was, the longer this standoff went on, the closer to an absolute blood bath it was going to be. By all reports militia came pouring in, armed. No way the BLM nor LEO's were going to make this another Ruby Ridge and rightly so - especially not over grazing rights.

BLM releases cattle to Bundy - 8 News NOW
 
That is dicy since the cattle were confiscated and moved for tresspassing. he will have to plead that case in court that the cows be
returned or he is given fair compensation.

of course they could rule that the cows are collatteral for the grazing that they did.

what is left is basically court and the court is not going to side on his side and in fact they have ruled about 3 or 4 times against him.

Good to see you, and ditto standing for authoritarian government overreach openly.
 
This has nothing to do with the topic.

I have no problem in supporting personal peoples rights. the difference is that this guy is thwarting or trying to thwart the law.
I also do not support the government putting in a national guard defense near this guys house.

so there is some give and take.
.

The "law" which is to say the Federal government has systematically over decades had a policy of discouraging both private and public use of BLM land through increased regulations and arbitrary fees and penalties. This is about control and the Feds want all of the control. Mining permits, grazing permits, drilling permits, logging permits are all less than they used to be. The BLM doesn't even allow you to put a dirt bike on a graded forest road in many places in the Sierras anymore. I'm not talking about off-road, I'm talking about dirt roads. This government doesn't want anyone or anything to use this land, not even wild burros and mustangs. They think they are saving the planet is what this is about. Ranchers, farmers, oilmen, miners and hunters are all EVIL. But your urbanite consumers on their city bicycle paths tweeting about Lady Gaga on their way to a local save the chickens rally are all saints.
 
It is public land. Whether it is state or federal is immaterial. The BLM is the
manager of the land. Anyway, where do you come by the info that it is state owned?

Here's some more about Bundy the Freeloader and his so called "range war":

Oh BS.

Then why the false narrative about the "endangered" desert tortoise ?

Why would the FED need to use the narrative about some poor tutles if the BLMs rights over all public land were absolute ?


You people need ro remember what happened the last time the Fed armied up to against American citizens.

WACO happened.
 
.

The "law" which is to say the Federal government has systematically over decades had a policy of discouraging both private and public use of BLM land through increased regulations and arbitrary fees and penalties. This is about control and the Feds want all of the control. Mining permits, grazing permits, drilling permits, logging permits are all less than they used to be. The BLM doesn't even allow you to put a dirt bike on a graded forest road in many places in the Sierras anymore. I'm not talking about off-road, I'm talking about dirt roads. This government doesn't want anyone or anything to use this land, not even wild burros and mustangs. They think they are saving the planet is what this is about. Ranchers, farmers, oilmen, miners and hunters are all EVIL. But your urbanite consumers on their city bicycle paths tweeting about Lady Gaga on their way to a local save the chickens rally are all saints.

Saving the Planet is just a false narrative.

Its about Contorl and revenue.
 
I wonder if it includes paying for the cattle they stole and the property they damaged.

Actually in the same article that I linked BLM offered to give Bundy some money from the auction. ANd anything that Bundy put on public property was a gift from him to us.

Bundy gave away his cattle when he decided for personal reasons that he would no longer pay grazing fees to the BLM. But he was stupid enough to believe that trying to pay the State and county grazing fees were going to save his stupid ass. The entire Bundy family seem a bit ignorant. I am hoping that they back their threats and use their guns to settle this, it would be very entertaining unless they actually hurt someone. But we both know that wont happen and this just fade away after Bundy makes his sell out deal final.
 
This turf war is all about power, not about cattle or tortoise, and the kind of power the writers of the Constitution warned about and why they passed the 2nd Amendment. Now many arms of the government are getting their own SWAT teams. Another Waco waiting to happen.

Johnny, Get Your Gun-Free Zone :: SteynOnline

I'm generally skeptical of anything Alex Jones has to say, but here's his claim:

» Feds Back Down From Bundy Siege After Infowars Exposé of Chinese Land Grab Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
 
They either used the yoda translator or they worship yoda.

Bundy-Ranch-500x275.jpg
 
Are you trying to get this thread moved to the conspiracy forum on purpose?

No. This may surprise you, but I'm sincerely curious whether Jones's claim has any validity.
 
I know, the atrocities. Many children were fed, schools opened, homeless sheltered by these actions.

As many children were fed before these actions. And as many homeless housed

Of course now thanx to government actions poverty increases which means even more need to be fed and sheltered.

YEs the federal government builds and opens more schools. Of course the student population is shrinking and education declines. Great example of government incompetance.
 
This has nothing to do with the topic.

I have no problem in supporting personal peoples rights. the difference is that this guy is thwarting or trying to thwart the law.
I also do not support the government putting in a national guard defense near this guys house.

so there is some give and take.

This is a problem that could be dealt with without the use of helicopters, armed men, etc., and the first excuse, I understand, was to protect turtles.
 
As many children were fed before these actions. And as many homeless housed

Of course now thanx to government actions poverty increases which means even more need to be fed and sheltered.

YEs the federal government builds and opens more schools. Of course the student population is shrinking and education declines. Great example of government incompetance.

The price of beef is also going up.
 
This is a problem that could be dealt with without the use of helicopters, armed men, etc., and the first excuse, I understand, was to protect turtles.

The government doesn't send hundreds of armed men to protect turtles. The government sends armed men to protect energy interests on this land, and that is what this is probably about.
 
This is a problem that could be dealt with without the use of helicopters, armed men, etc., and the first excuse, I understand, was to protect turtles.

How is that. That rancher self exempted himself from paying fees (surprised?) and continued to use land that is not his years for years. He ignored three or four court orders from diferent judges (harder for him to claim bias) telling him he was wrong. Hundreds of armed sympathizers come to the area to support him. And the federal government is supposed to send the Peace Corps to enforce the law?

I am not a big fan of over zealous applications of endangered species laws, and I think the rancher's (third generation) grazing privelages - not rights, in the area should be grand fathered - or the ban on cattle in the area dropped in its entirety. But, despite what he and his anarchist supporters claim, he needs to pay the fees.

This guy needs to join the Occupiers. They both have alot in common in that they think they can self exempt themselves from paying for things they choose to purchase and then threaten violence if their self exemption is not recognized. Heck , both of them also claim some kind of mystical "right" to things they have not purchased.
 
Last edited:
Hang the feds............Waco /Ruby Ridge
 
Back
Top Bottom