• 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

clownboy said:
Which now cannot be resolved in his favor in court, entirely due to his own actions.
Click to expand...

Yep and he now has a suit against the federal government for the destruction of private property.
along with the loss of live stock.

when you add in emotional distress that the fed's caused it could come out in a wash.
 
clownboy said:
Again,his permit was revoked AFTER he stopped paying. HE reduced the value of his ranch and destroyed his livelihood by not paying.
Click to expand...
I think you are splitting hairs, They told him to remove his cattle, and were buying up permits.
Telling him to remove his cattle is in effect cancelling his permit.
If his permit was good, why would they tell him to remove his cattle?
 
ludin said:
Yep and he now has a suit against the federal government for the destruction of private property.
along with the loss of live stock.

when you add in emotional distress that the fed's caused it could come out in a wash.
Click to expand...

Nope, the feds have a legitimate lien on his cattle and his land. He's got no legs to stand upon here. As long as both cattle and property value aren't over the 1.1 million he owes, it's the government's property now.
 
longview said:
I think you are splitting hairs, They told him to remove his cattle, and were buying up permits.
Telling him to remove his cattle is in effect cancelling his permit.
If his permit was good, why would they tell him to remove his cattle?
Click to expand...

THAT is what he could have taken to court and won. As long as the government is cashing the checks for fees made in a timely manner, they are law bound to allow him grazing. Remember what I said about an escrow account. Same thing as if you have a beef with a utility company - you do NOT get to just shine on the bill. You must pay to an escrow account until the court has the time to hear your case. Otherwise it'll always go against you in court.
 
clownboy said:
Nope, the feds have a legitimate lien on his cattle and his land. He's got no legs to stand upon here. As long as both cattle and property value aren't over the 1.1 million he owes, it's the government's property now.
Click to expand...

And how does one collect on a lien in Nevada?
The process is not that the government can just send in people to take their cattle - there's a legal process involved.

NRS: CHAPTER 108 - STATUTORY LIENS
 
clownboy said:
THAT is what he could have taken to court and won. As long as the government is cashing the checks for fees made in a timely manner, they are law bound to allow him grazing. Remember what I said about an escrow account. Same thing as if you have a beef with a utility company - you do NOT get to just shine on the bill. You must pay to an escrow account until the court has the time to hear your case. Otherwise it'll always go against you in court.
Click to expand...
And what if they stopped cashing the checks, or accepting payment of any kind?
 
longview said:
And what if they stopped cashing the checks, or accepting payment of any kind?
Click to expand...

Then you pay to an escrow account and off to court you go, I thought I was clear about that. But once they cash the check, they KNOW they are legally bound to allow the practice.

It's just excuse after excuse for a fellow that took a position that turned out to be wrong (legally). They are no longer his cattle, it's no longer his ranch. It will be sold to satisfy his debt (in part, he'll owe the rest).
 
clownboy said:
Nope, the feds have a legitimate lien on his cattle and his land. He's got no legs to stand upon here. As long as both cattle and property value aren't over the 1.1 million he owes, it's the government's property now.
Click to expand...

sorry you can't destroy someones property. they have a leinn huh were is the lein note and where is the warrent to seize his personal assets?

sorry while he might OWE them that unless they have a court order with a judgement against him on it they can't do anything to his property that includes his cattle.

they are however responsible for any damage and destruction caused. from what i have seen they have caused quite a bit.
destruction of pens, water lines and other things.

all of which is illegal.
 
AJiveMan said:
Sure I do, it's you who is clueless.

Everything you need to know about the long fight between Cliven Bundy and the federal government
Click to expand...

Your article stated:
April 1995: The fight between the Bureau of Land Management and the ranchers who want to use the federal land without fees or oversight is growing more tense, according to a story published in USA Today.


Thursday evening, a small bomb went off in the U.S. Forest Service office in Carson City, Nev.

Though no one has taken responsibility -- and no one was injured -- it has sent chills through government agencies involved in Western land management.

"If it was sent as a message," says Forest Service spokeswoman Erin O'Connor, "we got it."
Click to expand...

As far as I know it could have been you that did this, since no one has taken responsibility.
 
Texmex said:
Your article stated:


As far as I know it could have been you that did this, since no one has taken responsibility.
Click to expand...

Then you don't know ****.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Eminent domain was put directly in the Constitution by the founders. Guess how many people consented to the constitution? Look at the names that signed it. That is all those individuals that consented to it. Guess how many people appointed the founders to do anything?

There is really no merit to eminent domain that essentially gives the government ownership of all property.
Click to expand...

Eminent domain gives the government the right to acquire property needed for public projects by paying the fair market value of it. It does not give the government ownership of all or indeed of any property that they did not buy. It may be a thorn in some people's sides, but without it highways would simply not be built. One landowner could stall any project forever by simply refusing to sell.
 
j-mac said:
The turtle issue is a dead one....The conservation center plans to kill the tortoise....In a HuffPo article outing this fact, I think I may have found were the BLM comes up with their ridiculous $1 million claim:

"The Bureau of Land Management has paid for the holding and research facility with fees imposed on developers who disturb tortoise habitat on public land. As the housing boom swept through southern Nevada in the 2000s, the tortoise budget swelled. But when the recession hit, the housing market contracted, and the bureau and its local government partners began struggling to meet the center's $1 million annual budget."

Desert Tortoise Faces Threat From Conservation Center

This may be as simple as a good old fashioned shakedown...

And yes there are legitimate purposes for eminent domain, as laid out in the constitution as well. So, tell me Ditto, is there a road going through there? A hospital being proposed? A school? No....Also under eminent domain those being harmed by the grab are supposed to be compensated....What was offered Bundy for his loss of grazing rights that up to that point he happily complied with?
Click to expand...

Once again, eminent domain does not apply. The government is not trying to buy the land. It already owns the land.

and what could closing a conservation center near Las Vegas possibly have to do with Bundy and his claim to public land in Eastern Nevada?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Eminent domain gives the government the right to acquire property needed for public projects by paying the fair market value of it. It does not give the government ownership of all or indeed of any property that they did not buy. It may be a thorn in some people's sides, but without it highways would simply not be built. One landowner could stall any project forever by simply refusing to sell.
Click to expand...

If people can not refuse the sale of their property and must accept any offer provided to them by the government, then yes, the government does own all the property of the country. If you remember correctly it was the Supreme Court that put the condition of fair market value on eminent domain transactions, but according to the Constitution no such condition exists. It also hardly matters to me if the government can't do what it desires to do since their desires do certain things does not trump the peoples rights.
 
Henrin said:
If people can not refuse the sale of their property and must accept any offer provided to them by the government, then yes, the government does own all the property of the country. If you remember correctly it was the Supreme Court that put the condition of fair market value on eminent domain transactions, but according to the Constitution no such condition exists. It also hardly matters to me if the government can't do what it desires to do since their desires do certain things does not trump the peoples rights.
Click to expand...

Well, then, get behind a Constitutional amendment to get rid of it.
 
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...

What is your source for that assumption? I mean even Cliven Bundy said that he refused to pay the grazing fee because of new provisions because or the turtles. When someone states that they refuse to pay a fee it means that what they were paying the fee for still exists. Possibly if the Bundy Ranch would have worked with the BLM in preserving habitat for these turtles they might still be able to have their cattle on public lands. but instead Bundy acted like a idiot and just broke the law consistently for a couple decades.

The fact that Bundy Ranch has had their cattle grazing illegally shows that the BLM and hence the Government isnt that bad after all.
 
Henrin said:
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.



I interpreted it correctly.



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.
Click to expand...

I am thinking that people like George Washington would not agree with you. You Remember President Washington right? He was a famous military figure from the American Revolution. ANd you 40% figure came from where? stormfront?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
What is your source for that assumption? I mean even Cliven Bundy said that he refused to pay the grazing fee because of new provisions because or the turtles.
Click to expand...

The Washington Post reports:

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.​

How important is this turtle? The Associated Press reports:

Federal funds are running out at the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center and officials plan to close the site and euthanize hundreds of the tortoises they've been caring for since the animals were added to the endangered species list in 1990. . .

Back at the conservation center, a large refrigerator labeled "carcass freezer" hummed in the desert sun as scientists examined the facility's 1,400 inhabitants to find those hearty enough to release into the wild. Officials expect to euthanize more than half the animals in the coming months in preparation for closure at the end of 2014.​
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The fact that Bundy Ranch has had their cattle grazing illegally shows that the BLM and hence the Government isnt that bad after all.
Click to expand...

Rosa Parks also broke a law.
 
Dittohead not! said:
But she paid her bus fare.
Click to expand...

Is that the crux of the issue for you?

I'm not following this saga all that closely but my understanding is that Bundy was willing to pay but those who he sent the money to refused to accept it.

Now what, from where you stand?
 
RiverDad said:
The Washington Post reports:

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...
Well the Bundy"s posted this article on THEI blogspot that states: "Five years before that, when grazing was legal, Bundy stopped paying federal fees for the right."


perhaps though you should show that article to Cliven daughter since she is where I got my information from. Clive Bundy and his daughter Shiree Bundy are asking for your help | Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire


"My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these moneys against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a pittance he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down."

Now this is where you man up and admit that you were wrong.

How important is this turtle? The Associated Press reports:

Federal funds are running out at the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center and officials plan to close the site and euthanize hundreds of the tortoises they've been caring for since the animals were added to the endangered species list in 1990. . .

Back at the conservation center, a large refrigerator labeled "carcass freezer" hummed in the desert sun as scientists examined the facility's 1,400 inhabitants to find those hearty enough to release into the wild. Officials expect to euthanize more than half the animals in the coming months in preparation for closure at the end of 2014.​
Click to expand...
I didnt say that the turtle was important, never even implied it. I only brought it up since it was part of the facts. So put away your anti turtle stance its irrelevant.
 
RiverDad said:
Rosa Parks also broke a law.
Click to expand...

That isnt even the same concept at all. Nice try though. But I cant help to notice that you ignored the fact that the cattle have been grazing for 20 years without any attempt to stop them other than legal actions which Bundy also ignored. If the government was so bad one would think that they would have done something sooner and that they wouldnt have stopped taking them the other day just because some rednecks on horses came ridding up to them. Seriously a bad tyrannical government would have shot their asses dead on the spot. But they did no such thing because the conspiracy nuts are well nuts and wrong.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
That isnt even the same concept at all.
Click to expand...

Identical concept in play. The objection was that he was in the wrong because he was breaking the law. Rosa Parks broke the law too. Now the focus shifts onto whether the law was just. Well, is it?

If this turtle is so important that the Feds need to be stripping all of the ranchers in the area of their grazing land, and Cliven Bundy is now the very last rancher still operating in that area, then why are the Feds euthanizing the turtles in their preservation center?

The fact that the turtles are being euthanized suggests to me that the turtles are not that important. If the turtles are not that important then the revokation of grazing access to all of the ranchers in that area wasn't necessary. This puts us well into legitimate debate about whether that law is justified.

There is also a secondary issue in play. Is the government the master of the people or their servant? The Feds are closing the turtle preservation center due to a lack of funds but the Feds had plenty of money to devote to deploying all the equipment and personnel to enforce their will on the Bundy ranch. If the turtle was so important then that money could have instead been allocated towards keeping the center open and the turtles alive. Instead it seems that it was very important to use Federal assets and incur expenses to show the people who is boss, no matter that this is a protest of conscience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom