• 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!

Texas rancher: How the federal government took my property.

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's not just Nevada ranchers. Now Texas ranchers gearing up for a fierce fight with the federal government. The ranchers bracing for what they call a land grab. But the Bureau of Land Management insists it is categorically not expanding federal holdings. What's really going on here?

Texas rancher: How the federal government took my property | and didn't pay me one cent | OTR Interviews | On the Record | Fox News

In light of the Bundy dust up, and on going kerfuffle, so much misinformation, and mis-characterization of just what is going on within our government out west I thought it would be useful to highlight yet another case of the BLM just changing the rules, and grabbing land.

Now, I know that in the Bundy case it was supposedly over unpaid fees, or fines, but that could just be the excuse....Tell me what this guy did?
 
yep before the bundy standoff some 55 ranchers in nevada alone were also ran out of town. But they did not report about those ranchers and still the rable round here claims bundy is a terrorist.

its totallly disgusting sitting round here and listen to people spew what they hear from the boobtube and yet wont research themselves to find out what is going on.
tvsuckskidsbrains1.jpg
 
yep before the bundy standoff some 55 ranchers in nevada alone were also ran out of town. But they did not report about those ranchers and still the rable round here claims bundy is a terrorist.

its totallly disgusting sitting round here and listen to people spew what they hear from the boobtube and yet wont research themselves to find out what is going on.
View attachment 67166342

Maybe you can provide the specifics of the cases so we know what exactly happened?
 
In light of the Bundy dust up, and on going kerfuffle, so much misinformation, and mis-characterization of just what is going on within our government out west I thought it would be useful to highlight yet another case of the BLM just changing the rules, and grabbing land.

Now, I know that in the Bundy case it was supposedly over unpaid fees, or fines, but that could just be the excuse....Tell me what this guy did?

I do see a trend though, they are white skinned americans. Only one thing obama hates more then america and that is white americans.
 
Give me the exact reasons given by the BLM.

Why The Other Ranchers Support Cliven Bundy – statement from Kena Lytle Gloeckner, Nevada rancher

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years.

The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not.

What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following:

“You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc.

The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to.

Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment.

In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years.

As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%.

In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada.

Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM.
 
Why The Other Ranchers Support Cliven Bundy – statement from Kena Lytle Gloeckner, Nevada rancher

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years.

The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not.

What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following:

“You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc.

The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to.

Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment.

In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years.

As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%.

In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada.

Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM.

That sounds like a problem the problem is government stupidity, not the same thing as tyranny.
 
So the answer is no you can't.

I am not going back over this. see post #9 pretty much explains how they have driven off nearly all the ranchers from Nevada.
Whatever pay more for your beef i care not.

Lowest cattle herd in 60 years

Lowest cattle herd in 60 years

The U.S. cattle herd has shrunk for the fifth straight year to a 60-year low, a government report showed on Friday, as a devastating drought and record high feed costs hit production, which will likely mean even higher beef prices for consumers.



One of the worst droughts since the Dust Bowl days in the 1930s plagued the top cattle state of Texas for more than a year. In addition cattle producers there and in other states faced high feed costs as corn prices in June soared to a record of almost $8 per bushel (all prices US$).
 
In light of the Bundy dust up, and on going kerfuffle, so much misinformation, and mis-characterization of just what is going on within our government out west I thought it would be useful to highlight yet another case of the BLM just changing the rules, and grabbing land.

Now, I know that in the Bundy case it was supposedly over unpaid fees, or fines, but that could just be the excuse....Tell me what this guy did?

Well, he bought a piece of property that has naturally changing boundaries (he knew this when he bought it). All such land should be eminent domained, paid for and owned/managed by the feds. This keeps the states from fighting for ownership and allows the federal to do what the federal should be doing. This particular fellow should be paid the 1984 price of the land.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bundy situation.
 
I am not going back over this. see post #9 pretty much explains how they have driven off nearly all the ranchers from Nevada.
Whatever pay more for your beef i care not.

Lowest cattle herd in 60 years

Lowest cattle herd in 60 years

The U.S. cattle herd has shrunk for the fifth straight year to a 60-year low, a government report showed on Friday, as a devastating drought and record high feed costs hit production, which will likely mean even higher beef prices for consumers.



One of the worst droughts since the Dust Bowl days in the 1930s plagued the top cattle state of Texas for more than a year. In addition cattle producers there and in other states faced high feed costs as corn prices in June soared to a record of almost $8 per bushel (all prices US$).

So the BLM has to decrease the AUMs due to there being less grass as a result of a drought... so it's the governments Obama's fault there is a drought? Dastardly.
 
Well, he bought a piece of property that has naturally changing boundaries (he knew this when he bought it). All such land should be eminent domained, paid for and owned/managed by the feds. This keeps the states from fighting for ownership and allows the federal to do what the federal should be doing. This particular fellow should be paid the 1984 price of the land.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bundy situation.

Ok, could you explain to me what "naturally changing boundaries" means? And also, why the 1984 price? Shouldn't he be paid today's market value? I mean after all any improvements, maintenance, or care for that land to keep it up has been paid by him in addition to all of his fees, and taxes.

Do you think it proper that the government just walk on your land one day and tell you that this part of your property that you've paid taxes on, is just no longer yours? In any other situation we'd call that stealing.
 
In light of the Bundy dust up, and on going kerfuffle, so much misinformation, and mis-characterization of just what is going on within our government out west I thought it would be useful to highlight yet another case of the BLM just changing the rules, and grabbing land.

Now, I know that in the Bundy case it was supposedly over unpaid fees, or fines, but that could just be the excuse....Tell me what this guy did?



what about the land grab of Texas farmers and ranchers for the XL pipeline. people dont have a problem with that.
 
what about the land grab of Texas farmers and ranchers for the XL pipeline. people dont have a problem with that.

At least there is a public use for that. Something that can easily compensated for, and we aren't talking about hundreds of acres of one particular persons property either.

So, one would be constitutional, the other just government over reach.
 
Back
Top Bottom