Crazy stuff goin' on down there...
---
SALT LAKE CITY
Printable View
Crazy stuff goin' on down there...
---
SALT LAKE CITY
Looks like the good ole boys showed up.
http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpic...r=ksl/pgallery
http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpic...r=ksl/pgallery
http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpic...r=ksl/pgallery
http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpic...r=ksl/pgallery
http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpic...r=ksl/pgallery
http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpic...r=ksl/pgallery
http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpic...r=ksl/pgallery
http://img.ksl.com//usersubmittedpic...r=ksl/pgallery
This is out of hand. Sounds like it could be another Ruby Ridge or Waco in a hurry
LNT
So maybe the real dispute is whether or not his family had the original rights to the land?
There is no controversy. ... The cattle rancher Bundy is nothing but a thief stealing over one million dollars from you and me by not paying his federal grazing fees. He should be in prison and his cattle sold at auction to pay for his past due bills.
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
WRONG.
Bundy owned the land before the BLM laid claim to any parcel of property on his land. The real thief here is the federal government.
It would be like if tomorrow the BLM swooped in and laid claim to your house and asserted that you could still live there - you just had to pay them a hefty annual fee. It's B.S.
If you wanna talk about the investment of taxpayers money, let's talk about how much it cost to fund sending federal marshals out with helicopters and a small army of armed rangers...really?
I'll reserve judgement.
Read about the Hage family in Northern Nevada or watch this video.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...A472F91919D21B
The government has the ability to tie one up in court rulings, endlessly.
Would that give one a feeling of hopelessness?
Regardless of legality either way, here.
A government agency armed for war to remove cattle, can hardly be viewed as a peaceful solution.
Labeling a given area as a "1st Amendment area", is hardly constitutional in my mind.
The entire country should be a 1st Amendment area, as well as the rest of the Constitution.
It's stupid. By the BLM's own admission they are spending 2 million dollars for this round-up of 900 cows, so at best at a $1000 a head, $900,000. Why wouldn't they just round up 300 head when, by their own press release, they would be happy with the judges previous judgement ruling of $300K? These are cows that are dying and being buried near the road with a govt backhoe.
It's really about the proposed fracking leases in the area and the actual Bundy owned property (not BLM leases) that extends to the interstate. I'm not a conspiracy theory guy but there are some alarming coincidences regarding the gas exploration and his ranch.
I'm a bit passionate about the Gold Butte areas as I've been dirt biking there since I was a kid and have steadily watched area after area get closed off and I think It's interesting as a state's rights vs govt rights situation and this isnt the first time, they tried to round up his cows a few years ago too. Now I agree the Bundy guy is a bit wacko and for sure it's escalated by his refusal to accept the BLM's rulings and get his cattle of the land. This has been going on for years and years and his view the BLM is trying to regulate him out of business.
On the BLM side they have been trying to resolve this judicially for years and from what I understand two separate judges have issued orders. So the real issue here is whether the BLM has the right to take his land and then charge him for its use. Especially since his family has been there since the 1800's. He's willing to pay but wants the money to go to the state and not the feds.
Anyways, I find the whole thing pretty interesting.
I believe he said the county rather than state. It doesn't sound like he likes the state either.Quote:
He's willing to pay but wants the money to go to the state and not the feds.
This is one of the things I have a problem with, the gov. saying where one can exercise his natural rights!
And what is worse, is that they have had these signs made up....
ponder that
No matter which side of this situation you may agree with, it is a VERY SAD commentary on what's happening in this country - and especially about what is so often becoming the relationship between the government and the People - that SO MANY Federal agencies seem to have (and so very often use) SWAT team's, sniper rifles and similar "resources" when dealing with ordinary people, ordinary citizens .... and tax payers. :(
What's the legal background of the property? The United States acquired ownership of the land in question from Mexico via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), long before Mr. Bundy claims his family started using the property. The Nevada Territory was officially established in 1861; Nevada became a state in 1864. http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/ghtreaty/
This site (http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/nevada-statehood) offers a summary of the original constitution of the State of Nevada, which was approved by the vote of the people of the Territory of Nevada in 1864 (before Bundy's first claimed use of the land). It says the requirements of the congressional act enabling Nevada statehood "included ... the statement that all undistributed public lands would be retained by the federal government..."
- plagiarized but if true seems pretty cut and dry. Dude never "owned" the land. Once he stopped paying his lease out of protest or whatever, he shot himself in the foot IMO.
Warning, some language
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA#t=476
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattandersao
Well now, that changes everything.
Now I just read that they've dismantled the 'First Amendment Area."
Everyone has a problem with "what's happening in this country" but expects OTHERS to "do something about it"
Whatever you find sad, deplorable, etc. about what is going on...look in the mirror. YOU are the problem.
And obviously I am also looking in the mirror.
What are the odds in Vegas that eventually this all ties back in to dingy harry and corruption?Quote:
Originally Posted by nelsonccc
http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-...e-bundy-ranch/
Hank is right, we are the problem. To elaborate further, we blindly stand by while we allow the government and its special interests systematically dismantle our freedoms and rights. Some of the things I see going on in Nevada are straight out of some foreign country-not America. We have done this to ourselves by ignorant voting, not fully understanding the issues and putting people in control who are NOT supporting our fundamental rights.
All I know is that when they finally chased all the cows out of the Escalante drainage is sure got a hell of a lot nicer down there.
Absolutely!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by nelsonccc
Law Enforcement should ALWAYS turn a profit!
Maybe they can plant some Meth on him, or something.
Tom
We have family property since 1901 just above Oakley. It is surrounded on all four sides by the national forrest, an island of private if you will. It is beautiful and kept mostly as wilderness with the exception of the old logging access road from the 1800's. The Forest Service has tried to squeeze us out several times over the years - a judge in the 70's ruled hard in our favor and pretty much settled the access and such. We need the road to continue to be considered a "class D County Road" as that is the ruling by which the USF must maintain our access. The county has no dog in the fight and doesn't care whether the road is kept accessable or not.
A few years ago the USF rolled rocks off the mountain side choking off access on the road up above our property - citing it is now a watershed. They sell grazing rights to the ranchers in Oakly for summer range, even including our property in the description of the rights! I didn't think they could have herd cattle in a watershed... guess I was wrong. When my Bro in Law raised the issue of grazing on our land he was told that we would need to fence the entire length of the road through the property (roughly 3/4 mile), as well as the two end borders (1/2 mile each) to keep the cattle out... our problem, our expense. Fortunately we know the rancher involved - BiL grew up with the wife of him - and he's cool about it, tries to get the cattle off ahead of the lease so that it won't dick with our hunts, etc...
My BiL would love to pick a fight with the USF... I figure for our uses there isn't really an inconvience, except for the cattle pushing the elk out some years. I don't feel the need to spend the money on the attorneys and courts and upsetting the fragile peace. Actually the Rangers we run into occasionally on the property are pretty cool and have no knowledge of the history involved. I feel for the folks in NV as they appear to be getting hardlined... though there are 2 sides to the story I'm sure. I just hope watching the media coverage doesn't enflame the BiL to go after them....
Claim to Fame - parts of the movie Buffalo Rider were filmed on the property... check our youtube for hilarity...
I don't understand why Bundy and other Americans are invoking States' Rights - which ceased to exist almost exactly 149 years ago (9 years before the Bundy family started ranching in the disputed area) at Appomattox. The Bundys will lose, but hopefully more Americans will wake up...although if Vladimir Putin and Duck Dynasty showed up together, the Feds and their enablers would doubtless be on the run!!!
Interesting
http://www.doi.gov/whoweare/blm-dir.cfm
Will this be short term or long term?
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/252303...-bundy-and-blm
Seems a heavily armed citizenry put down a heavily armed government, without a shot being fired.
Wow you've got to be REALLY stupid to throw a lady down in front of 10 recording cell phones.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Kurt is all over it...
Yeah, I'd bet big that Reid's stinky breath is all over this thing.
So I wonder if the rancher's ancestors refused government help when they were stealing the land from the natives. Sounds to me like he's just another asshole tightwad but the feds were right to back off before they had to kill a few knuckleheads.
Today the media is linking dirty harry and his son to the leasing of the land to the Chinese for a massive solar panel farm. Guess where the map shows the solar farm? Right dab in the middle of Bundy's property. Very interesting and not surprising at all. Harry's son has a very dirty reputation here in Clark county too. Daddy's boy for sure. And the BLM director is harry's old staff. Alarming.
Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk
Feds think they are the only ones with tactical teams.
THIS--is why the second amendment matters, this is why gun owners will not go quietly into the night.
I think that once the crowds/militia depart, the FLEO's will be back. Too many egos to just let this go..Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by BruteForce
But if they do come back, their only intention can be to murder citizens
and thats not likely to go over well.
To attempt to control the citizenry, they must step up their game and thats were it will get interesting.
Also keep in mind the local law enforcement sided with the fed.
Not good for neighborly relations, down the road.
Video about the blmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAwALTdrMZ8
It has been claimed by many sources (Google "welfare ranching") that without subsidies to ranchers grazing on public lands, such grazing in the desert would be unprofitable. Even as it is, an extremely small percentage of beef and cattle products comes from cattle that are grazed on public lands.
Taxpayer money has paid for, and does pay for, fences, gates, cattle-guards, and predator extermination, as well as disaster aid for things like drought conditions, etc. Even on a highway project in a rural area, which people might not always think about, a large amount of taxpayer money is spent on items for cattle grazed on public land (I'm not saying that I'm against all of this part though).
Most cattle grazing now days is done on private lands in areas with adequate rainfall rather than the barren desert. In the past, cattle raising in the desert was still profitable without subsidies, but this mostly ended with better transportation methods such as railroad and trucking.
So far, this year alone, the state of Nevada has asked for millions of Federal dollars for drought relief for ranchers. The Department of Agriculture declared this year that Nevada is a disaster zone.
Here's a quote, not from the BLM, but a Agricultural Website article last month:
USDA has designated nine Nevada counties as primary natural disaster areas because of drought.
Included are the counties of Churchill, Lander, Mineral, Pershing, Clark, Lyon, Nye, Washoe and Humboldt.
In accordance with the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development, the following counties were named as contiguous disaster areas: Douglas, Esmeralda, Lincoln, White Pine, Elko, Eureka, Storey and Carson City.
Farmers and ranchers qualify for natural disaster assistance because of the USDA declaration. Those needing assistance should contact their local USDA Farm Service Agency office listed on the internet at www.fsa.usad./gov/NV.
"I am pleased that USDA Secretary Vilsack approved a disaster designation of Nevada counties," says Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, who was awaiting word from the state's drought response committee reviewing the declaration.
"USDA has a variety of programs to help eligible Nevada producers recover from adversity caused by natural disaster," says Jim Barbee, Nevada Department of Agriculture director.
"Every piece of the puzzle counts."
Actions taken by Vilsack in 2012 to provide assistance to producers impacted by drought included:
•Extended emergency grazing on Conservation Reserve Program land, freeing up a record 2.8 million acres and as much as $200 million in forage and feed for ranchers during a challenging time.
http://farmprogress.com/story-nevada...areas-9-109732
It seems that an easy way to satisfy both political ideological sides in theory would be to simply end the subsidies and bailouts, especially in desert areas. From an ideological standpoint, wouldn't that work for both conservatives and those who think grazing should be regulated?
Our country needs food, and I can see bailouts if the Nation's food supply is threatened, but in modern times, subsidizing farming and ranching in the barren desert really doesn't make that much sense from an economic standpoint. Keep in mind that this comes from someone who has descended from a long line of farmers and ranchers, including from the hardy soles that settled the desert (my family were some of the earliest residents to settle Kanab and Delta [UT]).
If he was behaving like a citizen this wouldn't be happening. FYIQuote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
FYI--standing up to a corrupt agency, egged on by a corrupt senator, who's intention is to remove you from land the they intend to use for other means and pad their own pocket, is not only a citizen's duty, it's damn Patriotic, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by cchoc
Allowing any agency to throw a woman to the ground in the manner I posted above is criminal and I hope is prosecuted.
But I'm glad to know you support such action to your wife/girlfriend.
Scott-nice generalities, now go do a bit more research on THIS ranch and let me know who has been developing and maintaining the land.
I will agree with you about far too many farm subsidies being paid out, most in an attempt to control
commodity prices.
Go here http://farm.ewg.org/index.php
it is astounding the abuse of this system and I see a lot of it in my area.