• 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

FreedomFromAll said:
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?
Click to expand...
The BLM should have showed up with flowers in their hair, carrying peace signs.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I suppose that would be an alternative. What difference would it make?
Click to expand...

Increased likelihood that armed confrontations would consist of people trained for armed confrontations. BLM could stick to managing federal land - ecosystem and biodiversity, etc. NOAA - another agency with armed agents for whatever reason - could stick to weather stuff. Social Security Administration - another agency with armed agents for whatever reason - could stick to Social Security. Department of Education and the FDA too. If you're going to issue weapons and training to any employee that could possibly get into a heated situation, there's no end to that list.

BTW, it's naive to be surprised at "radicals armed with rifles" when government brandishes their weapons at the drop of a hat. Raids on guitar factories, raw milk markets, and food distributors are done with sufficient show of military force so as to cause exactly the sort of fear that creates "radicals armed with rifles".
 
Why is 85% of Nevada land owned by the Federal government? They should cede it over to the State Government so they can partial it out to private ownership.
 
Slyhunter said:
Why is 85% of Nevada land owned by the Federal government? They should cede it over to the State Government so they can partial it out to private ownership.
Click to expand...


Sometimes I wonder about the educational level attained by those who call themselves "libertarian" and then other times I just say Phfffft!!

Nice biased sig
 
Kyle LaValliere said:
Increased likelihood that armed confrontations would consist of people trained for armed confrontations. BLM could stick to managing federal land - ecosystem and biodiversity, etc. NOAA - another agency with armed agents for whatever reason - could stick to weather stuff. Social Security Administration - another agency with armed agents for whatever reason - could stick to Social Security. Department of Education and the FDA too. If you're going to issue weapons and training to any employee that could possibly get into a heated situation, there's no end to that list.

BTW, it's naive to be surprised at "radicals armed with rifles" when government brandishes their weapons at the drop of a hat. Raids on guitar factories, raw milk markets, and food distributors are done with sufficient show of military force so as to cause exactly the sort of fear that creates "radicals armed with rifles".
Click to expand...

Perhaps the military would be better equipped to handle fights like this one, but can you imagine the outcry had they sent them in?

And, perhaps they could just ask pretty please with sugar on it, remove your cattle or pay the grazing fees.
 
Kyle LaValliere said:
Increased likelihood that armed confrontations would consist of people trained for armed confrontations. <snip>

BTW, it's naive to be surprised at "radicals armed with rifles" when government brandishes their weapons at the drop of a hat. Raids on guitar factories, raw milk markets, and food distributors are done with sufficient show of military force so as to cause exactly the sort of fear that creates "radicals armed with rifles".
Click to expand...


Hmmm, interesting. So protestors armed with signs and obscene speech should be surrounded by armed police and assaulted but that's OK while some lunatic white guy is told "We are taking your cows" and the "patriots" show up with their weaponry.

You know what will really be 'fun' in the most horrific way imaginable -- the next time a similar situation occurs and the "patriots" show up, and in their number is a psychopathic person who is absolutely sure the government is out to get him so therefore he has to shoot first. The response will not be good.
 
longview said:
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:
Click to expand...

No actually what really happened was that Cliven refused to pay for the grazing permit even though he could still be grazing on the same allotment today if he had complied with the permit fees and conditions. But he was making a political point and thing that he can just do whatever he wants outside of the law.
 
longview said:
Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government
The quote from March 1993.

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?
Click to expand...

You know that link is to blog right? Perhaps though you take Cliven's daughters word? "When they offered to buy my dad out for a penance he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down." STATEMENT FROM CLIVEN BUNDY,S DAUGHTER SHIREE BUNDY" - Lone Star Tea Party

When you do not pay your grazing permit it is revoked for failure of payment.
 
The state of Nevada charges $12 a head for grazing.
While the feds charge only $1.35 a head.
I think yours is a great idea to give this land back to Nevada !
Slyhunter said:
Why is 85% of Nevada land owned by the Federal government? They should cede it over to the State Government so they can partial it out to private ownership.
Click to expand...
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You know that link is to blog right? Perhaps though you take Cliven's daughters word? "When they offered to buy my dad out for a penance he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down." STATEMENT FROM CLIVEN BUNDY,S DAUGHTER SHIREE BUNDY" - Lone Star Tea Party

When you do not pay your grazing permit it is revoked for failure of payment.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's like not paying the rent or lease on an apartment, or, not paying the mortgage on a home, then the deputies show up to set your sheet out onto the curb, and tell you to leave. Except Bundy thought he could get away without paying, perfect example of a deadbeat, and a wealthy one at that.
 
Slyhunter said:
Why is 85% of Nevada land owned by the Federal government? They should cede it over to the State Government so they can partial it out to private ownership.
Click to expand...

No. Especially not in Nevada, the government did quite a bit of weapons testing in that state.

Here's a map depicting the percentage of land the government owns.

Fed%u00252BOwned%u00252BLands%u00252BMap.jpg
 
AJiveMan said:
There are two headed horny toads in New Mexico near the White Sands testing Site.

The turtle in Nevada that were subjected to testing in the test areas were toast.
Click to expand...

Yep, so you kinda get why I find the Fed's move ironic.
 
austrianecon said:
Yep, so you kinda get why I find the Fed's move ironic.
Click to expand...

Ironic in the sense that they're trying to collect from a deadbeat?

Shouldn't humans take the lead in preserving what we have left here on earth. Call me a conservationist, I like to have logical conservation methods when at all possible.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
No actually what really happened was that Cliven refused to pay for the grazing permit even though he could still be grazing on the same allotment today if he had complied with the permit fees and conditions. But he was making a political point and thing that he can just do whatever he wants outside of the law.
Click to expand...
I don't think we know what really happened, but I am fairly sure no conditions or fees would have allowed
him to keep his cattle grazing on that allotment, as the BLM had designated that for strict conservation efforts.
As to my link, I cited the Washington Post article.
Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government
 
FreedomFromAll said:
No actually what really happened was that Cliven refused to pay for the grazing permit even though he could still be grazing on the same allotment today if he had complied with the permit fees and conditions. But he was making a political point and thing that he can just do whatever he wants outside of the law.
Click to expand...

my understanding is the elevation of protection for the endangered species caused BLM to buy existing grazing rights to eliminate further grazing on public lands in that designated area
bundy refused to participate in that buy back
he did not seek a grazing permit thereafter, knowing it would be declined due to the concerns about an endangered species
 
AJiveMan said:
Ironic in the sense that they're trying to collect from a deadbeat?

Shouldn't humans take the lead in preserving what we have left here on earth. Call me a conservationist, I like to have logical conservation methods when at all possible.
Click to expand...

You can be a conservationist and not pay Government to be declared one. It's not like the land in question is experiencing a tragedy of the commons.
 
austrianecon said:
You can be a conservationist and not pay Government to be declared one. It's not like the land in question is experiencing a tragedy of the commons.
Click to expand...

Where I've been, and where I go, I pick up after myself and others. I make attempts of being a good steward, and I pay fees when I must pay fees. Anything less would be unethical.
 
AJiveMan said:
Where I've been, and where I go, I pick up after myself and others. I make attempts of being a good steward, and I pay fees when I must pay fees. Anything less would be unethical.
Click to expand...

and out public lands would be in better shape if everyone had the same ethics.

Unfortunately, there are lots of yahoos who find it perfectly acceptable to trash public places.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and out public lands would be in better shape if everyone had the same ethics.

Unfortunately, there are lots of yahoos who find it perfectly acceptable to trash public places.
Click to expand...

We're not like that at all.
When we camped @ Luna Campground in the Cibola N.F., a toilet enclosed by a plywood enclosure, dirty toilet seat, no t.p., trash everywhere.

We used our drinking water and anti bacterial soap to clean the toilet, and our own paper towels, and picked up litter in the camp too.

Part of the reason this camp was trashed was because it's remote, funding has been cut for cleaning and maintenance crews, and people just don't care. We do.

We also packed out all of the rubbish we generated and the trash we picked up.

We felt good about lending a hand.

lunacamp.jpg
 
Slyhunter said:
Why is 85% of Nevada land owned by the Federal government? They should cede it over to the State Government so they can partial it out to private ownership.
Click to expand...

If we want to go back to the original ownership of the land, then we should give deference to the natives and then to Mexico, in that order.
 
Phys251 said:
If we want to go back to the original ownership of the land, then we should give deference to the natives and then to Mexico, in that order.
Click to expand...

He didn't say anything about original ownership. What he was saying is that the federally owned land in Nevada should be returned to the state of Nevada and then sold to the people.
 
justabubba said:
my understanding is the elevation of protection for the endangered species caused BLM to buy existing grazing rights to eliminate further grazing on public lands in that designated area
bundy refused to participate in that buy back
he did not seek a grazing permit thereafter, knowing it would be declined due to the concerns about an endangered species
Click to expand...

No he could have obtained a permit but the the amount of head that he could have grazed would have been reduced. For the record there are 3 other ranchers in southern Nevada that still are buying grazing permits. Telling is that the Bundy"s lie and say that they are the last ranch in southern Nevada. But such dishonesty is of no surprise considering Clivens claim that the US Government does not exist. The Bundy"s are like their occupier cousins they put out a lot bull****.
 
Henrin said:
He didn't say anything about original ownership. What he was saying is that the federally owned land in Nevada should be returned to the state of Nevada and then sold to the people.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. What matters legally is who currently possesses the land. This idea of "returning the land to the people" is merely an academic exercise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom