• 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

Kobie said:
1. He stopped paying the federal fees five years before that.
Click to expand...

After they tried to limit the number of cattle which could be grazed on land his family and that of the other ranchers had been cultivating for that purpose for generations. These grazing areas wouldn't even exist if they hadn't because the area is a natural desert wasteland. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 was an act of theft in direct violation of the Constitution so I still maintain he owes nothing.

Kobie said:
2. The land has been off-limits to cattle since 1998. He's not above the law.
Click to expand...

At the direction of a federal agency which has no legal claim to the land. If the federal government doesn't want him or any other ranchers grazing there then it should be compensating them not showing up with machine guns and sniper rifles to steal cattle and rough up the locals.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
We, the people, own quite a lot of land here in California, too. So what? Does that mean we should just give it away?
Click to expand...

Allowing a rancher to graze his cattle, that get turned into food to feed the country isn't, "giving it away". We're talking about animals eating grass, not a thousand acre strip mine.

Something else I would like to point out, is that WE shell out millions to row farmers, that don't harvest half of what they plant and don't plant half the land they own. I know of land owners in Louisiana that collect subsidies on land that hasn't seen a plow in 40 years. And the Feds want to roll out an infantry division to take this dude's cattle over some nickel-n-dime grazing fees?
 
apdst said:
Allowing a rancher to graze his cattle, that get turned into food to feed the country isn't, "giving it away".
Click to expand...
Playing on emotion when one of yours is clearly breaking the law.
And the Feds want to roll out an infantry division to take this dude's cattle over some nickel-n-dime grazing fees?
Click to expand...
The Ultra-Right-wing meme over not paying taxes has gotten completely out of control--I agree .
 
NIMBY said:
Playing on emotion when one of yours is clearly breaking the law.

The Ultra-Right-wing meme over not paying taxes has gotten completely out of control--I agree .
Click to expand...

It's funny how you people suddenly regard the law so inflexible.
 
Don't know if it is related, but I'm against ALL special handouts and aid to farmers. And I grew up on a poultry and cattle ranch (I still own it). I'll never forget how the price of feed went up dramatically every time the federal govt. tried to prop up the income of corn farmers.

And personally, I sick of the ridiculous idea that it is the governments job to help "maintain this way of life" (supposedly of small farmers though it doesn't necessarily work out that way).

People lose farms all the time. People lose businesses all the time. People lose jobs all the time. Why should the government make it their business to determine which one is a "treasured way of life" and another is "@%&$ happens" ?
 
I *really* hope that gunplay does not go down.
 
This is just another example of Harry Reid corruption....

"In an apparent effort to cover its tracks, the BLM has reportedly removed documents from its website showing that the move to kick the Bundys and their cattle off of the land was at least in part due to the fact that their presence impeded development of solar energy on the land.

Reid and his eldest son, reports indicate, were integral in the support and/or implementation of a $5 billion solar plant being built in the county by a Chinese company.

Officially, the federal agency has suggested they are only after Bundy because his cattle are a threat to an endangered species of tortoise. That narrative, however, fell apart in the opinion of many critics when it was revealed the agency itself has engaged in the widespread slaughter of the animal.

The recent allegations of Reid’s hand in the Bundy attack are bolstered by the fact that his former senior adviser also served as the director of the BLM. According to reports, Reid successfully redrew the endangered tortoise’s protected habitat to benefit a donor, indicating his concern is more about his political and financial future than the well-being of this reptile."


Read more at Shocking Allegations Show Harry Reid, Chinese Company Behind Nevada Ranch Standoff

So, "Dirty" Harry Reid strikes again....$5 billion from the Chinese, and redrawing the lines to benefit a political donor, coupled with an ex-staffer, and his own son in positions of power, and screw the little guy.....

Reid is a pathetic waste of human skin. The quicker he ceases to be a part of this countries process, the better.
 
Napoleon said:
After they tried to limit the number of cattle which could be grazed on land his family and that of the other ranchers had been cultivating for that purpose for generations. These grazing areas wouldn't even exist if they hadn't because the area is a natural desert wasteland. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 was an act of theft in direct violation of the Constitution so I still maintain he owes nothing.
Click to expand...

When Congress passes US 43 sec. 315 it was not with this rancher, or cattlemen in mind, the act was passed to address leases on all public lands. The purpose of land use prior to 1934 is irrelevant.

What do you contend is unconsitutional about US 43 sec. 315?



At the direction of a federal agency which has no legal claim to the land. If the federal government doesn't want him or any other ranchers grazing there then it should be compensating them not showing up with machine guns and sniper rifles to steal cattle and rough up the locals.
Click to expand...

Does the rancher hold title to the land? If not, why should the federal government compensate the rancher for evicting him from the land?
 
austrianecon said:
Some misinformation here. He refused to pay BLM because they were using that money to force other ranchers out of the business in that area in the name of a tortoise. He offered to pay the county government the grazing fees and they declined to accept the funds. So it's not like he's avoiding taxes. He just not gonna pay BLM who is uses those fees to buy out ranchers.. this is a principle thing.
Click to expand...

except that the county doesn't own the land either. It's like saying to your landlord, "No, I'm not going to pay you because I don't like what you're doing with the money. I'll pay Sam over here instead."
 
apdst said:
Allowing a rancher to graze his cattle, that get turned into food to feed the country isn't, "giving it away". We're talking about animals eating grass, not a thousand acre strip mine.

Something else I would like to point out, is that WE shell out millions to row farmers, that don't harvest half of what they plant and don't plant half the land they own. I know of land owners in Louisiana that collect subsidies on land that hasn't seen a plow in 40 years. And the Feds want to roll out an infantry division to take this dude's cattle over some nickel-n-dime grazing fees?
Click to expand...

And people graze cattle in the national forests and BLM land here in California. Although those cattle help to feed us all, the owners still pay a fee for the use of that land, as they should. They get it back in the end when we pay for our steak. Beef isn't free, either.

What we need are fewer subsidies, not more. Those Louisiana farmers that collect subsidies you mention need to have their free money supply shut off as well.
 
1750Texan said:
If you don't like the regulation, gather like minded Americans to change the rule. If you can't muster enough takers...accept your lot in life.
Click to expand...

What the big mouth 3% that aint going to do **** with the "shtf"? No thanks, I got mine and plan to keep it.
 
Somerville said:
It has been Mr Bundy's words which have caused the government's reaction. He has threatened armed revolt since the BLM said "Enough! We are taking the cattle which are wandering on federal lands." I had started another thread on this topic but there aren't so many replying to it. Obviously some folks just jump in at the end of a topic without reading any background links. Bundy has said that "maybe 500 of the cows are mine", that is they have his brand on them but there are an additional 400 plus without brands or ear tags in the same area.

This dispute has been going on for 20 years. That doesn't seem to be the actions of an autocratic, oppressive government to me. The feds have tried to negotiate the situation for years but this clown seems to believe that simply because his cows have been wandering around on the 600,000 acres for all these years, the land is now his. Is that really the libertarian attitude?
Click to expand...

His? He is not the one claiming domain there. You really dont know what is going on out there do you?
 
CRUE CAB said:
His? He is not the one claiming domain there. You really dont know what is going on out there do you?
Click to expand...

Dont worry Bundy made a deal with the Sheriff.

BREAKING NEWS: BLM ends roundup of Bundy cattle - 8 News NOW

"Sheriff Gillespie has been negotiating with Bundy behind the scenes for months reached a tentative agreement Friday night, though Bundy insisted the sheriff come to his ranch to finalize the arrangement face-to-face.

The two men meet Saturday to discuss the agreement prior to a public announcement."
 
Dittohead not! said:
except that the county doesn't own the land either. It's like saying to your landlord, "No, I'm not going to pay you because I don't like what you're doing with the money. I'll pay Sam over here instead."
Click to expand...

Not fed land either. It belongs to the state. He paid his state fees. So your analogy fails.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Dont worry Bundy made a deal with the Sheriff.

BREAKING NEWS: BLM ends roundup of Bundy cattle - 8 News NOW

"Sheriff Gillespie has been negotiating with Bundy behind the scenes for months reached a tentative agreement Friday night, though Bundy insisted the sheriff come to his ranch to finalize the arrangement face-to-face.

The two men meet Saturday to discuss the agreement prior to a public announcement."
Click to expand...

I wonder if it includes paying for the cattle they stole and the property they damaged.
 
I will leave this for everyone's reading pleasure:

1) BLM is seeking to develop Solar farms in the area of Dry Lake: BLM Seeks Public Interest for Solar Energy Development in the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone

2) Harry Reid has long been courting the Chinese to develop green energy farms in America: Dems help Chinese firm chase stimulus - Business - Going Green | NBC News

3) In the original report by the BLM regarding the impacts of Bundy's cattle in the area they site "Non-Governmental concerns" on the development of solar farms in the area. That report has been taken down in the last few days from the BLM site, but it is cached here.

So essentially what is going on here is that Reid has a solar energy farm project in the area and they decided that the "mitigation" site (ie. the place where they wouldn't be ruining the environment with a solar farm) would be Gold Butte and therefor the cattle had to go. It isn't about turtles but then that has always been obvious since the turtles and cows have been coexisting for 150 years.
 
j-mac said:
Not fed land either. It belongs to the state. He paid his state fees. So your analogy fails.
Click to expand...

BLM is federal, not that it matters. If Sam in my analogy is the state, it still doesn't work. It is the BLM that is administering the land, not the state of Nevada, not Bundy, not anyone else.
 
NIMBY said:
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 .
Click to expand...

Its NOT Federal Land, its STATE land.

The FEDs are using a false narrative about a stupid turtle to build up revenues on land they dont even own.
 
Fenton said:
Its NOT Federal Land, its STATE land.

The FEDs are using a false narrative about a stupid turtle to build up revenues on land they dont even own.
Click to expand...

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":

The roundup of as many as 900 illegally grazed cattle from Nevada public lands continued with nary a hitch on Monday, despite grandiose threats of a "range war" from the livestock's owner.

Bunkerville, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy had issued the threat in response to a long-postponed confiscation of his cattle, which he's been grazing illegally on publicly owned Mojave desert land around Gold Butte in Clark County, Nevada since 1993.

That was the year in which Bundy, who denies the federal government legally owns land managed by the BLM, started to refuse to pay the token grazing fee required of ranchers who graze their livestock on public land. In the process, the combative Bundy has interfered with ecological restoration efforts, and environmentalists charge that his cattle are degrading the Gold Butte landscape.
Click to expand...
 
The precedent will be set throughout states in the West as well as alaska.
The GOP House has legislation opposing the BLM right now .
Fenton said:
Its NOT Federal Land, its STATE land.

The FEDs are using a false narrative about a stupid turtle to build up revenues on land they dont even own.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, the feds stole almost half his cattle so, hopefully they either return his property or pay him.
 
j-mac said:
Well, the feds stole almost half his cattle so, hopefully they either return his property or pay him.
Click to expand...

or take it out of the grazing fees he hasn't been paying for the past couple of decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom