• 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

Dittohead not! said:
Really?
Doesn't Uncle Sam collect fees for grazing and mining rights on the land we all own? I know they charge a small fee for parking and recreational use. Add it all up, and we should be making money from our land. If not, then we need to raise the fees and make sure that they're collected, even if it means evicting a few cattle now and again.
Click to expand...

These enforcements, along with eminent domain laws, have pretty much removed the power from the people and put it in the hands of the government.
 
Somerville said:
As the "feds" were there before there was state, I don't believe any state land was seized. Show me otherwise or stop making false statements
Click to expand...

Its an opinion, thus it cant be proven true or false. So no need to be insulting. Also, the 'feds' weren't there first. Native americans were. Then the Spanish, then Mexicans, then American citizens. At the time of statehood, the land was owned by free people, who chose to join the Union. They did not put in their constitution any land ownership for the federal govt, and since the bill of rights prohibits the federal govt from taking land for such purposes, its illegal.
 
American said:
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?
Click to expand...

The guy is a deadbeat. This desert turtle this is just a stupid talking point because it was legal to graze when he stopped paying. The moment he stopped paying fees he lost any right to graze his cattle on PUBLIC lands. It would be like me not paying rent for five years and then complaining that they want to turn the property into a casino.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
Really?
Doesn't Uncle Sam collect fees for grazing and mining rights on the land we all own? I know they charge a small fee for parking and recreational use. Add it all up, and we should be making money from our land. If not, then we need to raise the fees and make sure that they're collected, even if it means evicting a few cattle now and again.
Click to expand...

Or, since those activites are unconstitutional, cease such actions and save the citizens money regulating things they have no right to regulate. How are you a libertarian again?
 
Grant said:
These enforcements, along with eminent domain laws, have pretty much removed the power from the people and put it in the hands of the government.
Click to expand...

You mean the power of the people to use public lands any way they want without paying any fees?
 
jonny5 said:
Or, since those activites are unconstitutional, cease such actions and save the citizens money regulating things they have no right to regulate. How are you a libertarian again?
Click to expand...

Libertarian: The philosophy that the purpose of government is to protect our rights. I have a right to use public lands. So do you. The problem comes when your use of the land impinges on my use of the land, or vice versa. If I want to bring back the practice of hydraulic mining, for example, my use of the land just might impinge on you if you'd like to use it for hunting or fishing. When that happens, the government has to regulate the lands we all own in common so that we can all use the lands. Proper use of the land costs money for the construction of trails, roads, bridges, fences, etc. It is only right that the users of public lands pay those costs. The taxpayer shouldn't have to pay to have a parking lot paved on our local BLM lands so I can go there, park my truck, and hike around or hunt quail. It's only right that I and my fellow hunters/hikers/mountain bikers pay that cost. Same with cattle grazing. I don't really need fences to hunt quail, find them a nuisance in fact, but the cattle rancher needs them, and should pay for them.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You mean the power of the people to use public lands any way they want without paying any fees?
Click to expand...

There is a public school not too far from my house and the principal is a ****in nazi. It has the best park and playground in the neighborhood and they lock it down and shoo any of the public out of there. One time I was watching my little brothers there during daytime hours but when school was out of session and this dude came out and started wildly accusing me of drinking and leaving bear cans on the playground. I wonder why the school is so hostile and quick to kick everyone out. Its like they have their own little agenda with public property and its very ****ing annoying. Call the feds.

:p
 
dirtpoorchris said:
There is a public school not too far from my house and the principal is a ****in nazi. It has the best park and playground in the neighborhood and they lock it down and shoo any of the public out of there. One time I was watching my little brothers there during daytime hours but when school was out of session and this dude came out and started wildly accusing me of drinking and leaving bear cans on the playground. I wonder why the school is so hostile and quick to kick everyone out. Its like they have their own little agenda with public property and its very ****ing annoying. Call the feds.

:p
Click to expand...

On the one hand, the people who pay taxes pay for the school and should be able to use it. On the other hand, there probably are people who leave beer cans and other trash around, as well as write graffiti and leave a general mess. That seems to be a problem wherever the public has access to anything. It is unfortunate that we have such yahoos in our society, but they are a fact of life.

And then there is the liability. Allow people to use an area, they get hurt by doing something stupid, and it's the owner of the land that gets sued. That's not how it should be, you understand, but how it is.
 
jonny5 said:
Its an opinion, thus it cant be proven true or false. So no need to be insulting. Also, the 'feds' weren't there first. Native americans were. Then the Spanish, then Mexicans, then American citizens. At the time of statehood, the land was owned by free people, who chose to join the Union. They did not put in their constitution any land ownership for the federal govt, and since the bill of rights prohibits the federal govt from taking land for such purposes, its illegal.
Click to expand...

The land at issue was purchased from the Mexican govt by the Federal govt and has been owned by the feds since then. When the state joined the union, it agreed that these public lands were owned by the feds. The BoR does not forbid the govt from purchasing land from other nations.
 
jonny5 said:
You mean pay down debt, which would never happen. An alternative would be getting rid of the BLM, thus saving 1.5 billion.
Click to expand...

You mean make BLM something other than government lands? No management? Or mismanaged? The lands that so many people like myself have enjoyed the use of so much?

Lands where ordinary people can go to discover things, things like this? Land of openness where people can enjoy themselves?

mine.JPG
 
AJiveMan said:
You mean make BLM something other than
government lands? No management? Or mismanaged? The lands that so many people like myself have enjoyed the use of so much?

Lands where ordinary people can go to discover things, things like this? Land of openness where people can enjoy themselves?

View attachment 67164804
Click to expand...

Too bad the BLM isn't so concerned with public lands on the North Side of the Rio Grande.

You know, the lands that illegals have turned into a Dump.
 
Fenton said:
Too bad the BLM isn't so concerned with public lands on the North Side of the Rio Grande.

You know, the lands that illegals have turned into a Dump.
Click to expand...
98d1158920230-kindergartens-oerlikon-zurich-hijack.gif
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I have to agree. I say unfortunately because there are still so many things where the government is in the wrong on this overall issue, and this is just another sign of the government's heavy-handedness that needs to stop, but... in this particular case the guy has screwed himself and removed any moral high ground that he might have otherwise had.
 
radcen said:
Unfortunately, I have to agree. I say unfortunately because there are still so many things where the government is in the wrong on this overall issue, and this is just another sign of the government's heavy-handedness that needs to stop, but... in this particular case the guy has screwed himself and removed any moral high ground that he might have otherwise had.
Click to expand...

It seems to have ended peacefully enough for now but perhaps they'll look more closely to these situations in the future, not just from a legal pov but also from a philosophical and moral one.
 
Grant said:
It seems to have ended peacefully enough for now but perhaps they'll look more closely to these situations in the future, not just from a legal pov but also from a philosophical and moral one.
Click to expand...
Agreed. While I think he forfeited his moral high ground, I do have to say that it pleased me to see so many come to support him. If for no other reason than to show the government that we're getting sick of their tactics.
 
Grant said:
That is an issue also if it involves public land use.
Click to expand...

Public use is usually defined as BLM or Forest/Grassland, government owned. While I have never seen the BLM charge someone for camping on it, or using it for their personal pleasures of fishing, boating and camping, some forested lands and some grasslands and national monument areas do charge service fees to the public. The key to utilizing public land is knowing where you are on the map, and your map interpretation skills.

Mining for minerals or gems on a grand scale on public lands is not considered personal use. Sometimes, people forget that.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Libertarian: The philosophy that the purpose of government is to protect our rights. I have a right to use public lands. So do you. The problem comes when your use of the land impinges on my use of the land, or vice versa. If I want to bring back the practice of hydraulic mining, for example, my use of the land just might impinge on you if you'd like to use it for hunting or fishing. When that happens, the government has to regulate the lands we all own in common so that we can all use the lands. Proper use of the land costs money for the construction of trails, roads, bridges, fences, etc. It is only right that the users of public lands pay those costs. The taxpayer shouldn't have to pay to have a parking lot paved on our local BLM lands so I can go there, park my truck, and hike around or hunt quail. It's only right that I and my fellow hunters/hikers/mountain bikers pay that cost. Same with cattle grazing. I don't really need fences to hunt quail, find them a nuisance in fact, but the cattle rancher needs them, and should pay for them.
Click to expand...

Bundy was paying the fees until the point where the BLM changed the rules, supposedly to protect turtles. But the BLM doesn't stop at turtles, the BLM and the Feds impose regulations to supposedly protect rocks, weeds, pine needles, insects, tadpoles and air too on Federal land. I'm not convinced that is the real reason.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
Bundy was paying the fees until the point where the BLM changed the rules, supposedly to protect turtles. But the BLM doesn't stop at turtles, the BLM and the Feds impose regulations to supposedly protect rocks, weeds, pine needles, insects, tadpoles and air too on Federal land. I'm not convinced that is the real reason.
Click to expand...

I thought he quit paying the fees back in '93. Isn't that what the posts above said? The BLM decided not to allow grazing at all due to the desert tortoise, or so they said. By that time, he was already in arrears with his fees.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
Bundy was paying the fees until the point where the BLM changed the rules, supposedly to protect turtles. But the BLM doesn't stop at turtles, the BLM and the Feds impose regulations to supposedly protect rocks, weeds, pine needles, insects, tadpoles and air too on Federal land. I'm not convinced that is the real reason.
Click to expand...

It's not, especially in this case....In this case it is about Harry Reid, and his son, and ex staffer underhandedly focusing the power of the federal government on this rancher so that he can benefit his political donors....
 
Dittohead not! said:
I thought he quit paying the fees back in '93. Isn't that what the posts above said? The BLM decided not to allow grazing at all due to the desert tortoise, or so they said. By that time, he was already in arrears with his fees.
Click to expand...

How much land does the government claim to lord over in Nevada? Do you know?
 
radcen said:
Agreed. While I think he forfeited his moral high ground, I do have to say that it pleased me to see so many come to support him. If for no other reason than to show the government that we're getting sick of their tactics.
Click to expand...
Part of the reason why so many people supported this rancher is that the government has been overstepping its boundaries with the political use of the IRS, misleading the people on Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the demonizing of people who offer different opinions, and the overall feeling that the government has been usurping too much power from the people, with Obamacare being a significant part of that.

I expect this armed militaristic response to a rancher will have an effect on the upcoming elections. The USA needs new leadership, that's certain.
 
j-mac said:
How much land does the government claim to lord over in Nevada? Do you know?
Click to expand...

We, the people own quite a large percentage of the land in Nevada. We own quite a bit in California, as well. I'm not in favor of giving it away, though, are you?
 
Grant said:
Part of the reason why so many people supported this rancher is that the government has been overstepping its boundaries with the political use of the IRS, misleading the people on Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the demonizing of people who offer different opinions, and the overall feeling that the government has been usurping too much power from the people, with Obamacare being a significant part of that.

I expect this armed militaristic response to a rancher will have an effect on the upcoming elections. The USA needs new leadership, that's certain.
Click to expand...
Agree again. I would only add that this overstepping has been increasing and building over the course of multiple decades and multiple administrations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom