Unfortunately, there are a few things, Byron, that we can agree on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
Tom
Printable View
Unfortunately, there are a few things, Byron, that we can agree on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
Tom
On thing I can say is that I'm glad I don't work for the BLM in that area.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sec...rld&id=9504436
Bundy, whose family has operated a ranch since the 1870s southwest of Mesquite a few miles from the Utah line, does not recognize federal authority on the land that he insists belongs to Nevada.
On Saturday, the bureau released about 400 head of cattle it had seized from Bundy. The operation had been expected to take a month to collect as many as 900 cattle.
The animals were freed after armed militia members joined hundreds of states' rights protesters at corrals outside Mesquite. Bundy said they were united in defense of their constitutional rights.
"They have faith in the Constitution," he told KDWN-AM in Las Vegas on Monday. "The founding fathers didn't create a government like this."
The BLM's National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board was meeting in Sacramento on Monday on the broader issue fueling the conflict over how to divide the scarce forage on mostly dry lands across the West between livestock, wild horses and wildlife.
Wild-horse protection advocates say the government is rounding up too many mustangs while allowing sheep and cattle to feed at taxpayer expense on the same rangeland scientists say is being overgrazed. Ranchers say the government refuses to gather enough horses in the herds that double in size every five years.
Advocates on both sides accused the board of not addressing their concerns.
"Americans want wild horses on our public lands," said wild horse advocate Bonnie Kohleriter. "You cattlemen and wildlife people are special interest groups. You need to stop attacking the wild horses, attempting to diminish their numbers, and make resources available to them."
Debra Hawk, a biologist representing the Wildlife Society, said the BLM's failure to cut the number of wild horses is harming other species that rely on the land. She criticized the agency for indicating it may not continue the horse roundups, saying the BLM should "utilize all methods available" to cut the population.
"Not conducting roundups will result in further degradation of native ranges, harming native wildlife and plants," and is better for the health of native horses, she said.
Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore said she spent much of the past week with the Bundy family and helped feed some of the calves that were returned over the weekend.
"It's going to take a lot to revive the calves that were nearly dead when they were returned to the Bundy Ranch because they had been separated from their mothers during the roundup, and a few most likely won't make it," said Fiore, a Republican from Las Vegas. "It's time for Nevada to stand up to the federal government and demand the return of the BLM lands to the people of Nevada."
Horse protection advocates and other critics of livestock grazing on federal land said the government's suspension of the roundup sends the wrong signal to law-abiding ranchers who secure the necessary grazing permits to use the land.
The BLM "is allowing a freeloading rancher and armed thugs to seize hundreds of thousands of acres of the people's land as their own," said Rob Mrowka, a senior scientist for the Center for Biological Diversity. "It's backing down in the face of threats and posturing of armed sovereignists."
Why in God's name does that have to be unfortunate? I don't care that you're a super liberal dude...I think it's great when you bust out some really good stuff. Unfortunate for you perhaps, but not for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
So that is what it's all about. Freeloaders...horses or cows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
Fortunately, though, Byron didn't vote for the current Pres. who condones torture and runs gitmo with pride!:mrgreen:Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
I think you mentioned the last Pres. who did that should have been tried for war crimes in the Hague.
Am I wrong here? Is your guy enjoying his new whips and chains?
In the end, government corruption will be the fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
If Bundy could shut his mouth he might be vindicated.
So much more to come out of this....
All sides are conjecture, mostly at this point.
Any thought on whether this event will embolden other groups to arm up to protest their government grievences?
The government should fear the people, thats a healthy situation for a republic.Quote:
Originally Posted by double moo
Keep an eye on the Texas/Oklahoma border, blm is trying to confiscate land there.
This is the page that the blm took down from their website
http://archive.today/nvlzr#selection-213.0-213.313
Why did they take it down? It seems to make the case for them.Quote:
This is the page that the blm took down from their website
http://archive.today/nvlzr#selection-213.0-213.313
It sounds like more than just the turtle was involved:
This morning, I was going to post that I mostly side with the rancher on this one. I believe that conservation is very important, but I feel bad about it hurting a long established business. For new coming businesses or uses, things would be different. I want to support conservation (especially of roadless/wild areas), but I don't want to hurt anyone that has been farming or ranching for a long time. Because I so much love the wild lands and care about people as well, I actually think a lot about this and am conflicted with it at times.Quote:
Examples of Recent Incidents of Private Property Damage Caused by Bundy's Trespass Cattle
- One feral cow was hit by an automobile within Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Cattle are frequently seen on public roads, including State Route 170 and pose a danger to vehicles and to members of the public traveling on public roads.
- Overton Wildlife Refuge (State of Nevada) employee attacked by a Bundy bull.
- Crop destroyed by Bundy cattle on private land.
- Mesquite Heritage Community Garden damaged by trespass cattle.
- Mesquite golf course damaged by trespass cattle.
- Residents of the communities of Bunkerville and Mesquite have complained about the impact of cattle on city facilities.
The damage to private property and other issues kind of diminishes much of the sympathy I had though. It seems as he thinks that because his family was there first (?), even other private property owners don't have a claim to the land? Or perhaps there is more to this? It also appears, at least in court records that the cattle have expanded far beyond the original Bunkerville Allotment, which is where historically the cattle had been grazed.
Also, the argument has been used that Bundy's ancestors had been grazing cattle in the valley since 1877, but the grazing of the Bunkerville Allotment wasn't in the 1800's, it began in 1954 and lasted only a few years before being reinstated in 1973 before ending in 1993.
It seems that there is a lot more to it than just a turtle.
Great Question...Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
I'm thinking this paragraph.
- Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.
Relative to stuff previously posted on the BLM website and now taken down, take a look at this:Quote:
Originally Posted by nelsonccc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFio...&feature=share
and ask yourself WHY was the information taken OFF the BLM website.
YMMV
Lynn
Maybe in situations like this, zero will unleash this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y
Of course it would be for the children and if it can save just one life.............
If you people would quit sleeping with the lights on we wouldn't need those Chinese solar panels. HTH :)
If so, why wouldn't they just remove the paragraph with the reference to solar instead of some of the things the cattle have been doing to private property et al? The BLM has removed all references to the Bundy Ranch, including violations. It seems as if they kept everything else on their website pertaining to the solar:Quote:
http://www.bogley.com/forum/images/m...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Scott P http://www.bogley.com/forum/images/m...post-right.png
Why did they take it down? .
Great Question...
I'm thinking this paragraph.
- Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/new...ergy_Zone.html
They even kept the possible negative impacts to the environment due to the solar on their website:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medial...eria.Table.pdf
There are still dozens of links on the BLM site pertaining to the solar. There is nothing left pertaining to the Bundy Ranch violations in any way. How do the militias feel about the cattle damaging private land and crops?
Well technically......Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Do you even cabinet, bro?
Which of the 3 branches of gov. is in charge of the blm?
o.k.--times up, I know you don't know so I'm a gunna hep ya...
blm--run by newly appointed Neil Kornze(former advisor to dingy harry)
dept of the interior--oversees the blm
Secretary of Interior--oversees DOI(Sally Jewell, former President/CEO of REI)obama appointee
Secretary of the interior is a cabinet position(this will blow you away tom...)serving under the President(bho)
this 3 branch stuff if crazy, huh....
But to your credit, you're probably right, zero has likely been out golfing and has no clue there is turmoil in one of his 57 states(with one to go):roflol:
Maybe he was down in gitmo working on waterboard techniques last week and missed this...
But gitmo can't even still exist--zero promised to close it as a priority.
And when he makes a promise, by golly he follows through....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USRg3h4AdE
...
I posted a link, quite aways back in regards to this. http://farm.ewg.org/
You can go State by State/County by County and see who in your area is taking farm subsidies.
I said it then and I'll say it again, this system is incredibly abused.
Theres a guy in my area, I know him personally, he has a very small farm.
Records show him collecting close to $200,000. I don't think his property would even be valued that high.
Lots of Bundy's, wonder if it is one in the same?
Certainly would be hypocrisy if it is.
Theres so many angles to this incident, certainly more to come that may bolster either side.
I could have remained neutral, until they brought in 200+ armed rangers, established 1st Amendment zones and violently
throw a 57 year old woman to the ground. That ended all neutrality for me. All this(supposedly) over cows?
Forgot to add--type in the zipcode for the area you're looking at, it will bring up names and years.
WOW--Scott, I thought my zip code had offenders, how many of these guys do you know?
http://farm.ewg.org/addrsearch.php?s...mage_large.y=0
I agree with you that is was a poor way to handle things. The 1st Amendment Zone was stupid. As far as throwing the woman to the ground, in the original video she kept jumping in front of the moving vehicles. If they wouldn't have gotten her away, she could have got run over. On that part, I don't know what they should have done.Quote:
I could have remained neutral, until they brought in 200+ armed rangers, established 1st Amendment zones and violently throw a 57 year old woman to the ground.
It's a small town, so quite a few. Some are friends.Quote:
WOW--Scott, I thought my zip code had offenders, how many of these guys do you know?
Edit: Oh s***, one of top ones is my supervisor. Maybe I'd better not say much on the topic. :oops:
Did you see the video? She was clearly alongside the vehicle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ5AzjQF6Kw
Yes. It is a clip of the full video I saw (or another video). In the full video, before she was thrown to the ground, it looked like to me she was jumping in front of the vehicles. I will see if I can find it.Quote:
Did you see the video? She was clearly alongside the vehicle.
I did find the interview where she said she was getting in front of the vehicles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=oz5LnLLTAFU
It is at 2:25.
Still, as I said before, I think this BLM incident has done far more to harm conservation efforts than it has done to help them.
blm website, currently down for maintenance.
http://www.blm.gov/
Looks like Anonymous jumped in... probably a denial-of-service attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Misguided, from this seat. But was fun to see who in my town is sucking on the government teat. All good, upstanding, conservative Republicans, I'm sure. They make good socialists.
Tom
Yeah well...most people talk it, few actually walk it. Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind poaching some free government cheese, but I don't qualify for a damn thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Maybe it would be politically inappropriate to micro-manage, but I would like Sally Jewell (Secretary of Interior) to publicly step in and offer to set up some mediation to resolve this. I think she's a fairly smart person and I have a lot of respect for her - both as a businessperson (former CEO of REI) and environmentalist/conservationist.
Pretty interesting, definitely worth watching. I really like the selective management stuff;
http://www.westernjournalism.com/footage-bundy-massacre/#GszHzsPEi4cgiIOc.01
Some of the people commenting on the video have some "interesting" websites:Quote:
Pretty interesting, definitely worth watching.
http://www.usfreedomfighters.com/chr...orbondage.html
Attachment 72872Attachment 72873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
So she was "toppled" for safety purposes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn
Yeah, like, maybe Clive Bundy could recognize the existence of the Federal Govmint on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and every-other Sunday. Oh wait, he already recognizes them when he puts their checks in the bank.
So, Glenn, you think people should just ignore the law, ignore the court, not pay their bills, for 20 years... and then we should negotiate with them? How about the charges of inciting armed rebellion? Perhaps that could be negotiated down to public indecency???
I'm pretty sure the Feds are waiting for things to cool off, then they'll pick ol' Clide up and he will be a tenant of the Federal Government (for free!) for the rest of his days.
Tom
The following is a summation a legal friend of mine wrote...
Been digging into the whole Bundy Range War situation in Nevada and wrote down my thoughts. This is a bit long, but if you want a good understanding of the background behind the dispute this is useful info.
The whole situation has its roots in the Dust Bowl, believe it or not. After overgrazing and aggressive farming practices contributed to the destruction of topsoils across the West, in 1934 the US instituted the Taylor Grazing Act (along with other changes) to prevent any one person or group from overusing it.
"A new permit system granted grazing privileges by preference to ranchers who had actually used a grazing district's land during a priority period before 1934. Owners of land or water rights who could support livestock on base ranches during seasons when herds were not on the grazing districts were favored; those without property were not. Technically, the grazing permit is a revocable license under the law, not creating any right, title, interest, or estate in or to land, but it is considered by many to be a unique form of ownership, constituting a property right of the utmost importance."
That there is key. The law basically said the ranchers, to use federal land for grazing, have to pay an annual grazing fee to cover the cost of managing the system.
In the 1960s and 70s, other federal regulations began to apply (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.). During that period, federal law expanded the limitations on public land use to include not just managing the land itself for the use of the ranchers, but also managing the land to protect the general public interest (loggers, farmers, water users, tourists, and wildlife).
Then, in the 1990s, the desert tortoise was added as an endangered species. This impacted a lot of federal land in Nevada and was very controversial there. So Nevada and the Fed struck a deal. Nevada would buy back grazing permits from any ranchers that wanted to sell, they would then swap that land with the BLM for land that didn't involve the tortoise and could be used by the state. Many ranchers sold back their grazing rights to the tune of about $5 million.
Here's where it gets sticky...
Mr. Bundy's family had been grazing on that land before 1934. No, it wasn't "his land" per se, but his family, like countless other ranchers, had worked up to that point on the idea that any non-private land was free for everyone to use.
The 1934 Taylor Grazing Act changed that, of course, but most everyone (including the ranchers) agreed it was necessary to have someone manage public land to prevent another event like the Dust Bowl. There's no record that Bundy's family felt any different. His family, like countless other ranchers, paid the grazing fees and kept working.
The 1960s and 1970s law changes didn't seem to have much impact on the situation either.
It was the 1990s classification of the desert tortoise that was the last straw for Bundy's family. When they found out that they would no longer be allowed to graze on federal land because of a tortoise, they were incensed. And to show how angry they were, they stopped paying the range fees.
Why was that a problem? Because when Nevada and the Fed reached the buyback agreement, Bundy's family had nothing to buy back. They had defaulted on the grazing agreement by not paying the fees for about 2 years. So they were not eligible to be compensated for what they didn't have any more. Instead, the state of Nevada bought the permit he had formerly held from the BLM for about $275,000.
Now the Bundys were even more angry. So in protest, they started grazing on the land again, but not paying the fees. Two more years. Five more years. Ten more years. Twenty more years. Through this process, they were taken to court over and over, and judges repeatedly sided with the BLM. In the courts' view, it was a contract dispute, and the Bundys defaulted on the contract voluntarily in the 1990s and gave up all rights to use federal land for grazing. But the Bundys just ignored the court orders.
And so we hit the present, where the BLM begins confiscating the cattle, we have a standoff, and the BLM backs down to prevent an incident.
As you can see, it's not nearly as simple a situation as the big bad federal government trying to stop a family, unfairly, from grazing on land "his family has been using for 100's of years". A lot of local ranchers are not happy about what Bundy is doing. They pay their range fees every year, and here he is getting use of public land for free for 20 years, and calling in a bunch of armed militia members from all over the country to help him make it stick. It's easy to take the side of the little guy against the government, but sometimes, the little guy isn't right.
Awesome post.... thanks.
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
Oh, gosh, not at all. If you read my very first post on this you'll see that I don't side with Bundy's claims at all. At the same time, the actions that the BLM took were not planned well and helped make this situation worse. And I guarantee that Bundy will not be hauled off to jail - at least not as you describe. That would just make him a martyr and would incite a whole new round of antagonism.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
i just think someone like Jewell might be able to calm the waters somewhat and help get this concluded.
deagol....that WAS a great post (although I had to zoom my browser to read the text!). I wish this summary could be spread out so more of the public could see what's really going on.
Many people are only interested in facts that support their already-established point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn
in 3 - 2 - 1 - GO!
Tom
Agreed, and also, regardless of which side one takes, if any, it should also be mentioned that the Bundy Ranch is 160 acres and the area where the cattle are being grazed is more than 1200 square miles, and includes national park and private lands which were never owned by the ranch. It was the landowners who's property and crops were damaged that filed many of the complaints. In fact, the cattle have even damaged property in the city of Mesquite. Would you be mad if someone's cattle came on your property and were damaging it?Quote:
deagol....that WAS a great post (although I had to zoom my browser to read the text!). I wish this summary could be spread out so more of the public could see what's really going on.
Nope, I'd be even. 2nd Amendment solution, as it is called.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
Tom