• 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

$1.35 per animal per month on 500 animals? I guess you're made of money. And well done, Senator, on ignoring every other point I've made. You'll fit right in. And no, I"m not repeating them.

That's good, because, like the notion that the ranchers should get to use public land for free they're not worth repeating anyway.
 
Actually, local government has final say, Clarke County closed the land to grazing. Bundy dosen't have a legal leg on which to stand upon. In essence what you're saying in this post is that state law takes precedence over local laws. And this is Bundy's defense.

State laws do take precedence over local law. What Bundy unsuccessfully argued was that State law takes precedence over Federal law.
 
State laws do take precedence over local law. What Bundy unsuccessfully argued was that State law takes precedence over Federal law.

I'm thinking that would depend upon which state we're talking about. In my state, in my village, there are local laws and ordinances that people must abide by, which are not even state laws. So, I sort of disagree with your statement pertaining to state precedence over local. The only way I know of this is from dealing with repeat problem neighbors blasting their music which rattles windows, and having drinking parties on private property.

In fact, I had one neighbor attempt to turn his yard into a barnyard, rabbits, roosters, etc.. While I reside in a semi-rural setting, certain animals cannot be harbored in this village, the village has strict laws governing wildlife harboring, while the state doesn't have laws that say you cannot have roosters in your backyard, they leave those laws and regulations up to localized authority.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking that would depend upon which state we're talking about. In my state, in my village, there are local laws and ordinances that people must abide by, which are not even state laws. So, I sort of disagree with your statement pertaining to state precedence over local. The only way I know of this is from dealing with repeat problem neighbors blasting their music which rattles windows, and having drinking parties on private property.

In fact, I had one neighbor attempt to turn his yard into a barnyard, rabbits, roosters, etc.. While I reside in a semi-rural setting, certain animals cannot be harbored in this village, the village has strict laws governing wildlife harboring, while the state doesn't have laws that say you cannot have roosters in your backyard, they leave those laws and regulations up to localized authority.

you may have misunderstood his point
you are correct, if there is no provision in state or federal law, then the local laws are in effect
however, if the local law is not in agreement with state law, then state law trumps local law
similarly, if the state and feds disagree, the federal laws trump state laws
and in the federal sector, the hierarchy places laws above regulations, and regulations above standard operating procedures
that is sometimes found necessary to know when it is realized that a regulation (or SOP) disagrees with the underlying law (or regulation)
 
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.

Thumbing your nose at established laws isnt going to get anyone anywhere except arrested or fined. The Nevada Cattleman's Association released a statement and quite clearly voiced their official position. I didnt stretch **** dude, its all there in black and white perhaps you should read it instead of falling all over yourself to assert your ideology, that I personally care nothing about.
 
false equivalency.

We have freedom every day and would not have as rich of freedom without all levels of gov't .

Just because you can walk out of your home and go places doesn't mean you are free.
 
The 16,000 cattlemen in this Country who pay their fees would disagree with you.

They are no more Patriots than the Militant Arch-right-wing websites looking for more Bundys .

As I have already said, bundy needs to pay his fees. But at the point of a gun??
 
As I have already said, bundy needs to pay his fees. But at the point of a gun??

At this point what are the government's options? Twenty years of using the 'system' has gained nothing from Bundy. He was the one who threatened retribution well before armed BLM agents showed up in the area.
 
Lots of "deadbeats" in this country don't have swat show up for payment.

The BLM did not show up with guns asking for a payment. Please give a link that shows that the BLM was asking for payment at gun point.

What the BLM was doing was removing illegal cattle that were grazing public lands that the owner of said cattle had no right to do. The Bundy"s had publicly made anti-BLM and anti-American statements in the past where they implied that they would use force to keep their cattle on public grazing land.

What do you suppose would have happened had just a few BLM agents had shown up with the contracted crew to remove the cattle? I suspect that the Bundy's would have showed up with their guns and would have stopped the removal of the cattle at gun point. Oh wait the Bundy"s did show up and stop the removal of the cattle at gun point.

The Bundy"s never looked intimidated by the BLM they continued to act like dicks despite the amount of firepower during the standoff. I mean when the Bundy"s threatened a "range war" they confirmed the need of armed BLM agents needed on site during the removal of the illegal cattle.

I view this situation much like illegal immigration, people can make all the excuses that they want but the cattle are on public grazing land illegally. What part of ILLEGAL do people not understand? Cliven Bundy is a deadbeat either way and should be forced to pay his damn fines. Cliven made the decision to stop paying his grazing fees. He made his bed and is now laying in it.
 
Lots of "deadbeats" in this country don't have swat show up for payment.

Yes, they do. Do you see that as a good thing as well?

They do? You'd have to post that.. .

?? you posted it....

Go back again I think you misunderstood

I'm certain I must have misunderstood.

Perhaps the first of your quotes? I took that to mean that there are lots of other deadbeats besides the cattle rancher we've been discussing.
 
As I have already said, bundy needs to pay his fees. But at the point of a gun??

Repeated court orders ignored. What's your alternative to someone who refuses any and all peaceful attempts to collect?
 
I'm certain I must have misunderstood.

Perhaps the first of your quotes? I took that to mean that there are lots of other deadbeats besides the cattle rancher we've been discussing.

Indeed. How many of them are collected on by swat?
 
Repeated court orders ignored. What's your alternative to someone who refuses any and all peaceful attempts to collect?

So lean his land. Garnish his earnings. File a judgement. But no. Your first jump is to armed force?
 
So lean his land. Garnish his earnings. File a judgement. But no. Your first jump is to armed force?

Armed militia show up at Bundy's ranch anticipating the arrival of the federal agents. How did they know federal agents were coming there in the first place?

How did the federal agents know they should arm themselves when they showed up on the BLM land?

You know, some people, I won't mention names here, but they must really, really think the militia members were dealing with Barney Fife types.

It would not come as a surprise to me in the least if the federal government tracks the movements of these militia people, especially after Forest Service and BLM offices have been bombed. One bomb even blew up under a Forest Service Supervisor's vehicle.

I'm not saying the militia people at Bundy's spread were to blame for these bombings, but understanding that federal agents might move cautiously when confronting militia types would probably be an understatement.

It's not really in Bundy's interest to become associated with people who show up at his ranch to confront federal officers, any attorney with 1/2 ounce of brains would tell him that. He's pretty much placed himself into a box now, he'll need to find a way out. without his little helpers.

I'm not familiar with the term "lean".
 
Indeed. How many of them are collected on by swat?

Only as a last resort, just like the Bundy affair.

So lean his land. Garnish his earnings. File a judgement. But no. Your first jump is to armed force?


“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.”
 
So lean his land.
is the land in his name? if so, does it already have a lien affixed to it making the real property judgment proof

if the land is held in the name of an owner other than the same name in which the court judgment was received, the feds cannot attach someone else's property to recover the debt of another

Garnish his earnings.
is he a wage earner? if so, that could be possible, but how effective is that if his ranch corporation is paying his wages. think they will comply with a garnishment request

and what if he is not a wage earner. what if his income is the profits from his ranching operation. how does the government reach those ranching profits

File a judgement.
this has very likely been done, after twenty years of court losses by the rancher. however, it is one thing to file a legal judgment, it is quite another to attach assets of the debtor to recover the money owed under the judgment
what we saw was BLM tempt to attach the cattle to sell at auction to recover against that judgment. the very exercise you criticize

But no. Your first jump is to armed force?
the rancher made threats. how wise is it to attend a conflict inadequately armed
 
Back
Top Bottom