• 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

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,041
Reaction score
33,367
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing | Fox News

For 20 years, a tough-as-leather Nevada rancher and the federal government have been locked in a bitter range war over cattle grazing rights.

This weekend the confrontation got worse, when the feds hired contract cowboys to start seizing Cliven Bundy's cattle, which have been grazing on public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The government officials brought a show of force that included dozens of armed agents in SUVs and helicopters.

Bundy, 67, who has been a rancher all his life, accuses BLM of stampeding over on his rights.

“This is a lot bigger deal than just my cows,” Bundy told FoxNews.com. “It’s a statement for freedom and liberty and the Constitution.”

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.

“For more than two decades, cattle have been grazed illegally on public lands in northeast Clark County,” the BLM said in a statement. “BLM and (the National Park Service) have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter administratively and judicially. Impoundment of cattle illegally grazing on public lands is an option of last resort.”

But Bundy said he has grazed cattle on the land for decades, and his father and father's father did long before his 1,000 cattle roamed the area. He has long defied orders from bureaucrats he says are bent on running him out of business.

Bundy said he is worried BLM might try to turn the situation into another Waco or Ruby Ridge.

“Yeah, there’s a little fear in me,” Bundy said. “They’re definitely set up to do that.”

Federal officials said BLM enforcement agents were dispatched in response to statements Bundy made that the agency perceived as threats.

I hope these federal agents don't go full retard over some cattle grazing. Helicopters? Really?
 
Seems like a significant overkill of force for this. Perfect area to consider budget cuts to. Clearly they have amble resources if they can dispatch such a large response to a cattle rancher.
 
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.

I might have been with him but for the bolded above. He doesn't even qualify to be grandfathered in under the law, and it's entirely his own doing.
 
I might have been with him but for the bolded above. He doesn't even qualify to be grandfathered in under the law, and it's entirely his own doing.

while this might be the case it is some cattle and they are basically sending in an army. can we say overkill?
 
while this might be the case it is some cattle and they are basically sending in an army. can we say overkill?

So I take it you haven't heard of....



mad cow.

<em>
 
It goes much deeper than the cattle.
BUNDY stopped paying Federal fees for the LEGAL grazing of his cattle.
That is about being a tax scofflaw.
And then BUNDY hides behind the Constitution, as with the 16th amendmenters.

The GOP House is now dabbling in this sort of thing.
It is like them to give away the goodies of the USA for their buddies .
while this might be the case it is some cattle and they are basically sending in an army. can we say overkill?
 
A rancher doesn't pay grazing fees legally contracted to graze his cattle.
Then rancher illegally grazes for 20 years.

Federal government goes full retard .
After reading the article...it seems they hit full retard 15 years ago.
 
A rancher doesn't pay grazing fees legally contracted to graze his cattle.
Then rancher illegally grazes for 20 years.

Federal government goes full retard .

I know, the atrocities. Many children were fed, schools opened, homeless sheltered by these actions.
 
Do you endorse breaking the law?
Even when it's a state law/state's rights.
I know, the atrocities. Many children were fed, schools opened, homeless sheltered by these actions.
Parabolic extension to the absurd with using atrocities connected with feeding children and sheltering homeless.
A petty bush-league tactic .
 
Do you endorse breaking the law?
Even when it's a state law/state's rights.

Parabolic extension to the absurd with using atrocities connected with feeding children and sheltering homeless.
A petty bush-league tactic .

Ahh...you didn't understand what I meant.

The use of force, and the show of force was completely unnecessary for this event. If a kid skateboarding in a area off limits to skateboarding, you don't involve the swat team. This was a clear show of force by the BLM. Completely unnecessary. This should be handled by the courts and our legal system. I know what you are going to say...
BLM and (the National Park Service) have made repeated attempts to resolve this matter administratively and judicially

So is our legal system failed? This isn't exactly a drug cartel. This is a guy with cows. He opens a gate and they eat grass.

You will notice he no problem paying his grazing fees to Clark County. He also feels his family owns this property. This clearly should be settled in court. There was no need for a "military" type operation on grazing cattle.
 
Seems like a significant overkill of force for this. Perfect area to consider budget cuts to. Clearly they have amble resources if they can dispatch such a large response to a cattle rancher.

Now we know why the Feds feel the need to be equipped like the 2nd Armored Division.
 
The federal government owns too much land in Nevada, it's ****ing outrageous. The governor should call out the national guard and seize it.
 
Seems like a significant overkill of force for this. Perfect area to consider budget cuts to. Clearly they have amble resources if they can dispatch such a large response to a cattle rancher.

DHS probably wants to try out those millions of bullets they bought.
 
Things like this need to happen for anything to change. The federal govt was never given the power to seize state lands for the purpose of protecting animals. No one needs to be violent, but we do need lots of non compliance.
 
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.
 
Feds move in on Nevada rancher's herd over illegal grazing | Fox News



I hope these federal agents don't go full retard over some cattle grazing. Helicopters? Really?


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.

The federal government owns too much land in Nevada, it's ****ing outrageous. The governor should call out the national guard and seize it.

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... .
 
Last edited:
File this in the "wtf are we doing spending money to keep a guy from grazing his cattle in the middle of nowhere" bin.
 
The federal government owns too much land in Nevada, it's ****ing outrageous. The governor should call out the national guard and seize it.

Yes, what a reasonable action to take, forums poster American. You are definitely a reasonable person and I applaud your contribution.
 
File this in the "wtf are we doing spending money to keep a guy from grazing his cattle in the middle of nowhere" bin.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom