• 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

I think folks are forgetting he has 150 acres of his own land. Seeing the way public grazing was going he had ample time to retask his farm.
 
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****.


you may be right, as i have been wrong many times before
but my understanding is bundy's grazing rights were sought for BLM acquisition after the concern in '93 about the tortoise species being at risk in that grazing area
if that is true, then i cannot understand why an extension of his grazing privileges would have been granted while the BLM was simultaneously purchasing existing rights of area ranchers
 
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.

And I don't disagree in principle. But when the BLM is not renewing grazing rights for Ranchers in these areas. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's not like the area where Bundy did grazing was harmed, it well kept by him and others. I'd understand your position more if the area was down right a dust bowl.
 
And I don't disagree in principle. But when the BLM is not renewing grazing rights for Ranchers in these areas. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's not like the area where Bundy did grazing was harmed, it well kept by him and others. I'd understand your position more if the area was down right a dust bowl.

We both don't know that. I wouldn't speculate.
 
you may be right, as i have been wrong many times before
but my understanding is bundy's grazing rights were sought for BLM acquisition after the concern in '93 about the tortoise species being at risk in that grazing area
if that is true, then i cannot understand why an extension of his grazing privileges would have been granted while the BLM was simultaneously purchasing existing rights of area ranchers

Bundy chose not to be bought out, he could have continued using public grazing land through purchase of a permit with allowed head of cattle and a reduction of land that he could have grazed his animals on.

I do sympathize with Cliven about losing a family traditional lively hood due to environmental concerns of all things a tortoise. And Cliven has a right to disagree and protest such decisions. The smartest thing that he could have done was work with environmentalists on how to save the desert tortoise and its habitat. A business the Bundy Ranch must adapt to whatever comes its way.

The BLM does things like this because public land users tend to abuse their rights (see dust bowl). I personally live in ranching country (my moms birth certificate says my grandpas occupation was cowboy). There are good ranchers and then there are bad ranchers. Some make sure to take care of the land because they know that their lively hood counts on it. Had Bundy been at the forefront of helping the desert tortoise then things would have been different.

But the Bundy Ranch said 'lol a turtle? **** off! we are doing what we want and **** America **** everyone but us'. meanwhile Cliven Bundy is asserting crazy **** like the US Government doesnt exist, and the rest of the Confederate states right stance. Cliven even tried to use such a stance as a defense in court. Obviously his rant was rejected as nonsense.

Cliven had his chance and failed because he is a dickhead anti American that wants to start a second American Revolution. **** him and the horse that he rode in on.
 
Hmmm, interesting. So protestors armed with signs and obscene speech should be surrounded by armed police and assaulted but that's OK while...

Who said that was okay? Are you arguing with someone else while replying to my post?

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.

Interesting. Completely unrelated to the Bundy case, but still interesting.
 
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.

Local police should suffice, it should be a local issue related to one family.

Perhaps they - or you - could explain how the grazing fees and other regulations are appropriate considering they've driven out every other rancher in the area. I see leftists bolstering their anti-Bundy'ism by saying he's a 1%'er - all I see is the perfect example of regulations driving out all the little guys and leaving a small but powerful cartel - or a monopoly as this case appears to be. Just as Mises predicted. Maybe the grazing fees are just as awful as Bundy says.
 
Local police should suffice, it should be a local issue related to one family.

Perhaps they - or you - could explain how the grazing fees and other regulations are appropriate considering they've driven out every other rancher in the area. I see leftists bolstering their anti-Bundy'ism by saying he's a 1%'er - all I see is the perfect example of regulations driving out all the little guys and leaving a small but powerful cartel - or a monopoly as this case appears to be. Just as Mises predicted. Maybe the grazing fees are just as awful as Bundy says.

The grazing fees have driven out every other rancher? Really? That's the first I've heard of that, and I think I've read most of the posts in this thread. Perhaps you could provide a link.
 
Local police should suffice, it should be a local issue related to one family.

Perhaps they - or you - could explain how the grazing fees and other regulations are appropriate considering they've driven out every other rancher in the area. I see leftists bolstering their anti-Bundy'ism by saying he's a 1%'er - all I see is the perfect example of regulations driving out all the little guys and leaving a small but powerful cartel - or a monopoly as this case appears to be. Just as Mises predicted. Maybe the grazing fees are just as awful as Bundy says.

So where are the other ranchers that pay those fees?

Here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...NevadaCattlemen/NCA Post Gather Statement.pdf


The Nevada Cattlemen's Association makes a good case in this statement. But they do so above the table asserting that a legal peaceful soleution be hammered out by Bundy and the Federal Government alone.

"We regret that this entire situation was not avoided through more local government
involvement and better implementation of federal regulations, laws, and court decisions. While we
cannot advocate operating outside the law to solve problems, we also sympathize with Mr.
Bundy’s dilemma. With good faith negotiations from both sides, we believe a result can be
achieved which recognizes the balance that must be struck between private property rights and
resource sustainability."

The Nevada Cattlemen's Association are not on board with Bundy's outside of the law anti-American bull****. They believe that a rational negotiations can be made with the government.
 
If they are asked to go up against a bunch of radicals armed with rifles, then yes.

That's nonsense. We're there people there with weapons? Yes. Were their goals peaceful resolution? Yes.

Harry Reid doesn't seem to be so.
 
The Nevada Cattlemen's Association are not on board with Bundy's outside of the law anti-American bull****. They believe that a rational negotiations can be made with the government.

That interpretation is a bit of a stretch. They want rational negotiations with the government, and must operate within the law, but I don't see anywhere where they think they can achieve any satisfaction. This is the classic "the system sucks but what the hell are we gonna do?" defeatism that has brought us to having more regulations, crony protectionism, and useless laws, and a bigger federal budget than any time in history. Working within the system is just bringing faster and faster losses.
 
The grazing fees have driven out every other rancher? Really? That's the first I've heard of that, and I think I've read most of the posts in this thread. Perhaps you could provide a link.

He called himself the "last man standing" when the latest brouhaha started. He claims there were dozens of ranchers in that area just a couple decades ago. It's an important point so, if it were wrong, I'm sure his detractors would have debunked it by now. If you find out otherwise, I'd be interested to hear about it.
 
He called himself the "last man standing" when the latest brouhaha started. He claims there were dozens of ranchers in that area just a couple decades ago. It's an important point so, if it were wrong, I'm sure his detractors would have debunked it by now. If you find out otherwise, I'd be interested to hear about it.

I see. So, it was a statement that Bundy made. But, wasn't there a reference to a "cattlemen's association"? Was that an association of one?
 
That's nonsense. We're there people there with weapons? Yes. Were their goals peaceful resolution? Yes.

Harry Reid doesn't seem to be so.

Peaceful resolution and continued freeloading?
 
Peaceful resolution and continued freeloading?

how peaceful was that sniper taking position to aim at the federal employee doing his job on behalf of the American public?
expect the next step to be the attachment of bundy's ranch - rather than his cows - as the asset sold to collect the judgment ... with well armed federal marshals executing such attachment against the ranch
let's then see who cowboys up
 
how peaceful was that sniper taking position to aim at the federal employee doing his job on behalf of the American public?
expect the next step to be the attachment of bundy's ranch - rather than his cows - as the asset sold to collect the judgment ... with well armed federal marshals executing such attachment against the ranch
let's then see who cowboys up

That should have been the first step, not after armed thugs surrounded him and tried to steal his cattle.
 
There comes a point where people won't stand for over bearing government anymore...you know, like the founding of this country?

Is that time imminent when said Government attempts to enforce law and act upon court designated legal positions?

It seems to me this has become little more than an excuse for militant anti-establishment cowboys to display testosterone enflamed ball sacs.
I just hope they are bright enough to avoid provoking the inevitable bloodshed stupidity would create.
 
That should have been the first step, not after armed thugs surrounded him and tried to steal his cattle.

could you share with us where it was that the 'armed thugs surrounded him and tried to steal his cattle'

i was of the impression that the BLM contractors rounded up the cattle then grazing on federal lands, and not the bundy ranch
 
That should have been the first step, not after armed thugs surrounded him and tried to steal his cattle.

the federal policy in effect when i was a liquidator was to recover from the debtor's personal property (cattle in this instance) in an attempt to preserve their home, where possible (the bundy ranch)
seems you are opposed to a policy which seeks to preserve a debtor's residence whenever possible
by bundy's actions, such preservation of his home may now not be possible
 
There comes a point where people won't stand for over bearing government anymore...you know, like the founding of this country?

Sounds more like a squatter refusing to leave a foreclosed house to me.
 
There comes a point where people won't stand for over bearing government anymore...you know, like the founding of this country?

i can hear the rallying cry already:
'tolerate our illegal freeloading'


sounds so similar to 'no taxation without representation'. yes, expect many to rally to your call. maybe as many as two dozen. that should provide for a good revolutionary fight facepalm.gif
 
I see. So, it was a statement that Bundy made. But, wasn't there a reference to a "cattlemen's association"? Was that an association of one?

You mean the Nevada association? That's the whole state, not the area specific to the Bundy episode. What trend do you see in the membership level of that association? I see a Reuters article corroborating "dwindling number of ranchers" and, probably more indicative, the highest beef prices in over a quarter-century partially attributed to a "dwindling number of cattle".
 
Back
Top Bottom