• 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

j-mac said:
Yeah, I have to admit I heard him being interviewed on that, and he said, that he didn't recognize the US government, and I had to say to myself "What the...?"
Click to expand...
I'm finding it harder to recognize it these days too.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Yet those same people did fight in the American Revolution and won. By the use of their guns and lives they were behind the US Constitution, a majority by a huge proportion. those that did not want America went home or died.
Click to expand...

Only about 40% of the people supported independence from England. If you claim was factual that would mean that 60% of the population either died or went to England. What do you think the likelihood of that is? They also didn't put their lives behind the Constitution since it didn't exist until some years after the war.

So then it sounds like you went to public schools. So which version did you memorize? I am not thinking that it was any version that actually exists, if your take was what you just said. Or your interpretation is a outright lie. I am going with the latter.
Click to expand...

I interpreted it correctly.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate-we can not consecrate-we can not hallow-this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us-that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion-that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Click to expand...

What he just said is because people died to put this country in place, the people that followed them have no right to destroy it. That the government that they put in place shall exist forever no matter what.
 
j-mac said:
Yeah, I have to admit I heard him being interviewed on that, and he said, that he didn't recognize the US government, and I had to say to myself "What the...?"
Click to expand...

That does bring up the question if this guy's argument is rationally sound.
 
j-mac said:
Well, if he were paying his fees like he was before 1993, then he would...Largely because he paid for the right to have his cattle there...Today? this is in dispute due to an over bearing government agency that just used the endangered species act to arbitrary raise those fees, probably backed by the National Vegan society to put him out of business.
Click to expand...

Ah. If he'd been paying his fees, then there would never have been a problem, right?

And are those fees really too high? Are they really? You have to prove that before you can show that he was right in refusing to pay those fees. Besides, if something costs too much, does that give one the right to take it anyway?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Ah. If he'd been paying his fees, then there would never have been a problem, right?

And are those fees really too high? Are they really? You have to prove that before you can show that he was right in refusing to pay those fees. Besides, if something costs too much, does that give one the right to take it anyway?
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you are proposing here, except that I posted earlier how this came to be...I think his argument was in the governments authority to impose the fees in the first place...But, his recourse would have been to pay up front, then lobby to change the law.
 
j-mac said:
As I understand it, before 1993 the fees were paid to the state of Nevada, after that, the feds came in with some BS about this turtle, and just started demanding a fee.
Click to expand...

Then you understand wrong, see Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. All grazing fees have been federal since at least 1978 including Clark County NV. That means that without legal protest The Bundy Ranch paid the federal fees for 16 years affirming their approval.

And poetically see what President Ronald Reagan did in 1986

Executive Order 12548 -- Grazing Fees

"Executive Order 12548 -- Grazing Fees
February 14, 1986


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to provide for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic livestock on public rangelands, it is ordered as follows:"

"Forage Value Index'' the forage on that public land in Clark COunty Nevada has a indexable value that is owned by the people of the United States of America. The Bundy Ranch is stealing "Forage Value Index'' on a dialy bases since 1994, the assholes need to pay or get the **** out.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Then you understand wrong, see Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. All grazing fees have been federal since at least 1978 including Clark County NV. That means that without legal protest The Bundy Ranch paid the federal fees for 16 years affirming their approval.

And poetically see what President Ronald Reagan did in 1986

Executive Order 12548 -- Grazing Fees

"Executive Order 12548 -- Grazing Fees
February 14, 1986


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to provide for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic livestock on public rangelands, it is ordered as follows:"

"Forage Value Index'' the forage on that public land in Clark COunty Nevada has a indexable value that is owned by the people of the United States of America. The Bundy Ranch is stealing "Forage Value Index'' on a dialy bases since 1994, the assholes need to pay or get the **** out.
Click to expand...

Not Reagan!!! Well then, he is a RINO!

LOL

These anti government kooks, have a solution...leave the country.
 
clownboy said:
Where are you getting this?

EDIT: Here is the reason the OP gave for his refusal to pay fees:
Click to expand...
Some of it is inferred from the quote in the article at the beginning of this thread from the BLM.
“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.”
Click to expand...
Since we know He was using the land and paying the fees before then, and two decades ago
the illegal grazing started. I think they stopped issuing grazing permits.
The price per AUM has been the same since 1986, so it was not a price increase.
FYI the AUM price is $1.35 per month per cow, so about $324,000 for 20 years.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Then you understand wrong, see Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. All grazing fees have been federal since at least 1978 including Clark County NV. That means that without legal protest The Bundy Ranch paid the federal fees for 16 years affirming their approval.

And poetically see what President Ronald Reagan did in 1986

Executive Order 12548 -- Grazing Fees

"Executive Order 12548 -- Grazing Fees
February 14, 1986


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to provide for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic livestock on public rangelands, it is ordered as follows:"

"Forage Value Index'' the forage on that public land in Clark COunty Nevada has a indexable value that is owned by the people of the United States of America. The Bundy Ranch is stealing "Forage Value Index'' on a dialy bases since 1994, the assholes need to pay or get the **** out.
Click to expand...
You are assuming the Government would accept the money.
It sounds like the BLM did not renew the permits to graze.
 
longview said:
Some of it is inferred from the quote in the article at the beginning of this thread from the BLM.

Since we know He was using the land and paying the fees before then, and two decades ago
the illegal grazing started. I think they stopped issuing grazing permits.
The price per AUM has been the same since 1986, so it was not a price increase.
FYI the AUM price is $1.35 per month per cow, so about $324,000 for 20 years.
Click to expand...

Ah, well, as I posted from the OP, that wasn't the reason he stopped and there is absolutely no mention anywhere that the feds stopped accepting payments at that time.

324k + fines and interest over 20 years easily equals the 1.1 million he owes now.
 
longview said:
You are assuming the Government would accept the money.
It sounds like the BLM did not renew the permits to graze.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't "sound" like that at all. It's sounds like just what is reported - he stopped paying because he thought he had a right to use those lands for free because his Mormon ancestors did.
 
clownboy said:
Ah, well, as I posted from the OP, that wasn't the reason he stopped and there is absolutely no mention anywhere that the feds stopped accepting payments at that time.

324k + fines and interest over 20 years easily equals the 1.1 million he owes now.
Click to expand...
How do you know the reason he stopped paying?
Why would a person who has been paying a license fee his whole life,
for access to resources that fund his livelihood, suddenly stop paying?
We are talking $16K a year.
I don't know about before 1966, but they started collecting AUM fees for sure in 1966.
He would have been paying that fee his entire adult life.
 
j-mac said:
I agree with most of what you are proposing here, except that I posted earlier how this came to be...I think his argument was in the governments authority to impose the fees in the first place...But, his recourse would have been to pay up front, then lobby to change the law.
Click to expand...

Sure he can argue about the fees, but like you said, his proper recourse would have been to pay up front and lobby to change the law.
 
clownboy said:
No, it doesn't "sound" like that at all. It's sounds like just what is reported - he stopped paying because he thought he had a right to use those lands for free because his Mormon ancestors did.
Click to expand...
Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government
The section for 1993 is as follows,
March 1993: The Washington Post publishes a story about the federal government's efforts to protect the desert tortoise in Nevada. Near Las Vegas, the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts. "Among the conservation measures required," according to the Post's coverage, "are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land."

Many people were not impressed by the new conservation plan. "Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a 'land grab,' are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve." People who use the desert to prospect for minerals and to race motorcycles and jeeps also feel shortchanged. "'It was shoved down our throat,' said Mark Trinko, who represents off-road vehicle users on the committee that oversees the plan."

Bundy has repeatedly been fined for grazing his cattle on the protected land, fines he has not paid since 1993. The Bureau of Land Management, which oversees about 800 grazing areas in Nevada, responded by revoking his permit. Bundy has not applied for a new one.
Click to expand...
He could not have paid his grazing fees for a revoked permit.
 
longview said:
How do you know the reason he stopped paying?
Why would a person who has been paying a license fee his whole life,
for access to resources that fund his livelihood, suddenly stop paying?
We are talking $16K a year.
I don't know about before 1966, but they started collecting AUM fees for sure in 1966.
He would have been paying that fee his entire adult life.
Click to expand...

I know the same way you do - every report that includes a reason says that's why he stopped. He's a Mormon and he "feels" he has a right to use that land for free because his ancestors did.

As for the rest, the ranch has been in his family, could be 93 was when his folks retired and he was the one responsible for paying the fees.
 
clownboy said:
I know the same way you do - every report that includes a reason says that's why he stopped. He's a Mormon and he "feels" he has a right to use that land for free because his ancestors did.

As for the rest, the ranch has been in his family, could be 93 was when his folks retired and he was the one responsible for paying the fees.
Click to expand...
His permit to graze his cattle on federal land was revoked in 1993.
Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land."

Many people were not impressed by the new conservation plan. "Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a 'land grab,' are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve."
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government
The section for 1993 is as follows,

He could not have paid his grazing fees for a revoked permit.
Click to expand...

I think you need to re-read that. The BLM revoked his permit AFTER he stopped paying. I understand his refusal to sell his permit to the save the turtle folks, I think if that were the issue and he had continued paying on his permit, he'd have a case.

When things like this happen (with the turtle thing), if the government isn't accepting your payments (and there is no hint of that happenning here), the only correct way to deal with that without almost always losing your land at the end, is to start an escrow account for the payments. Then off to court you go. THAT goes a very long way in court.
 
longview said:
His permit to graze his cattle on federal land was revoked in 1993.
Click to expand...

Only AFTER he stopped paying:

Bundy has repeatedly been fined for grazing his cattle on the protected land, fines he has not paid since 1993. The Bureau of Land Management, which oversees about 800 grazing areas in Nevada, responded by revoking his permit. Bundy has not applied for a new one.
Click to expand...
 
clownboy said:
I think you need to re-read that. The BLM revoked his permit AFTER he stopped paying. I understand his refusal to sell his permit to the save the turtle folks, I think if that were the issue and he had continued paying on his permit, he'd have a case.

When things like this happen (with the turtle thing), if the government isn't accepting your payments (and there is no hint of that happenning here), the only correct way to deal with that without almost always losing your land at the end, is to start an escrow account for the payments. Then off to court you go. THAT goes a very long way in court.
Click to expand...
The Government was buying up all of the permits for that section, no further grazing.
He refused to sell his back, as it would end his ranch.
I think this is a new area of the law, paid public access of government property.
By revoking his permit, they reduced the value of his his small ranch,
and destroyed his livelihood.
 
clownboy said:
Only AFTER he stopped paying:
Click to expand...

Bundy has repeatedly been fined for grazing his cattle on the protected land, fines he has not paid since 1993. The Bureau of Land Management, which oversees about 800 grazing areas in Nevada, responded by revoking his permit. Bundy has not applied for a new one. Let me ask you this, what was he being fined for, if he had a permit to graze?
Why would they still accept payment, if he had already been told to remove his cattle.
This will end in court, but there are access rights issues here.
Now it is cattle and grazing land, but it could just as easily be trucks and interstates.
 
longview said:
Bundy has repeatedly been fined for grazing his cattle on the protected land, fines he has not paid since 1993. The Bureau of Land Management, which oversees about 800 grazing areas in Nevada, responded by revoking his permit. Bundy has not applied for a new one.
Let me ask you this, what was he being fined for, if he had a permit to graze?
Why would they still accept payment, if he had already been told to remove his cattle.
This will end in court, but there are access rights issues here.
Now it is cattle and grazing land, but it could just as easily be trucks and interstates.
Click to expand...

This already ended in court more than once...he lost.
 
longview said:
The Government was buying up all of the permits for that section, no further grazing.
He refused to sell his back, as it would end his ranch.
I think this is a new area of the law, paid public access of government property.
By revoking his permit, they reduced the value of his his small ranch,
and destroyed his livelihood.
Click to expand...

Again,his permit was revoked AFTER he stopped paying. HE reduced the value of his ranch and destroyed his livelihood by not paying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom