BREAKING: 200+ “Militarized” Federal Police Surround Peaceful Rancher in Nevada

[WinterBorn]

You're blinded by the idea that property rights must be endorsed and sanctioned by the government, but that's simply not the case.

Explain to us how the federal government has a property right in land that it has never used at all, over the people who mixed their labor with that land.

I am not blinded by anything. I accept that there are laws that cover land ownership, and that the federal gov't does, in fact, own land.

If you would like to convince the people to reduce or remove these laws, I will be behind you. But until those laws are removed, they stand to be enforced.

If I owned land that I was intentionally allowing to remain wild, by your rules, someone else could come in and work it and change the ownership of that land.

The federal government "owns" land because the federal government has simply declared it to be so, and it has backed this claim up with the threat of violence. As we are seeing here. It has done nothing to take legitimate ownership of any land, however.

A bad law is no law at all, and should not be enforced.

That just goes to show you don't understand the principle of ownership. Once somebody has mixed their labor with unowned land, then nobody else can come along and mix their labor and claim ownership.

Care to prove that the Bundy family mixed their sweat with anything on the public lands??

 

[Katzndogz]

Now you know what happened to the farmers when Stalin took over.

 

[hangover]

Next, the ranchers will want to graze their cattle in Yellowstone National Park for free, and kill all the Buffalo, deer and elk, so the cattle will have enough grass. I'm sure you wouldn't mind them grazing in your yard, huh.

That's about as likely as you making a rational post.

I love it when you make stupid comments, which you don't have a clue about.

 

[nodoginnafight]

That just goes to show you don't understand the principle of ownership. Once somebody has mixed their labor with unowned land, then nobody else can come along and mix their labor and claim ownership.

Since when is grazing "labor"

 

[nodoginnafight]

Now you know what happened to the farmers when Stalin took over.

You mean Stalin tried to make farmers pay up on their grazing fees?

The BASTARD

diversionary hyperbole

Have anything that actually applies?

 

[paulitician]

I sure hope he survives this dispute with Big Brother. We all saw what happened to those women and children at Waco. Big Brother doesn't like to lose. God help him.


A long-simmering dispute between a Nevada cattle rancher and the federal Bureau of Land Management has reached a boiling point, and participants have their fingers crossed it won’t erupt into violence.

Since 1993, Cliven Bundy has been battling the agency, as well as the National Park Service, the Center for Biological Diversity and the courts, to graze his cattle on 150 square miles of Gold Butte scrub land in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. He stopped paying his grazing fees back then, saying he “fired” the Bureau of Land Management as land manager. His Mormon ancestors had tilled the unforgiving soil since 1887, long before the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act allowed the federal government to seize control.

“I have raised cattle on that land, which is public land for the people of Clark County, all my life. Why I raise cattle there and why I can raise cattle there is because I have preemptive rights,” he asserted, that this includes the right to forage, too.

Furthermore, Bundy has argued that it is the United States trespassing on Clark County, Nev., land, not he, and that he is a better steward of the land. He points out that the manure from his cows fertilizes the soil, that he’s built water sources for wildlife, and that his cattle prevent the vegetation from growing overly dense and creating a fire hazard.

But environmentalists, federal officials and the courts disagree. Armed federal officials and contract cowboys have been brought in to execute a 2013 court order and remove the trespassing cattle.

“It’s high time for the BLM to do its job and give the [endangered desert] tortoises and the Gold Butte area the protection they need and are legally entitled to,” senior Center for Biological Diversity scientist Rob Mrowka told the Mesquite Local News. “As the tortoises emerge from their winter sleep, they are finding their much-needed food consumed by cattle.”

Bundy’s herd also hinders the plants’ ability to recover from wildfires, tramples rare species, damages ancient American Indian cultural sites and endangers recreationists, Mrowka added.

The Bureau of Land Management “has overstepped its boundaries by not letting me access my rights,” he said, and contended that it had inserted “200 armed officers watching our every move and stealing our cattle.” Bundy’s wife, Carol, said snipers are patrolling the family’s ranch.

Spokeswoman Cannon responded that “There are law enforcement and other personnel in place as needed to ensure that the BLM and National Park Service’s employees and contractors are able to conduct operations safely.”

Bundy has vowed to do whatever it takes to protect his property, and his 14 children and hundreds of supporters stand behind him. Dave Bundy, his son, was arrested on Sunday afternoon while attempting to film the contract cowboys at work, and cited for failing to disperse and resisting arrest...

Read More:
Defiant Nevada rancher faces armed federal agents in escalating confiscation standoff - BizPac Review
DRUDGE REPORT 2014®

 

[Katzndogz]

WACO! Go back further than Waco. This is what Stalin did in Russia.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You were given a receipt for the purchase of your computer. If Bundy can show a receipt where he paid his grazing fees - no problem.

IMHO - a very poor analogy.

That's because you've mixed it up. You're focusing on the grazing fees, rather than the fact that the Bundy's already owned the land in the first place. And yes, I was awarded a receipt, but where that receipt is now I couldn't tell you. In other words, I have as much proof that I own this computer as Bundy's family had to prove that they owned the land. Yet it's clear in both cases who the rightful owners of the property in question are. In the case of the computer, I am the obvious rightful owner. In the case of the land, the ranchers who mixed their labor with the unowned, unoccupied land are the owners of the land. Even if they don't have some deed saying that it's so.

Nope, Bundy NEVER had a receipt because he NEVER owned the land. You are right in that the rightful owner of Bundy's grazing land is obvious - it is the people of the United States of America. There is absolutely no legal argument to be made for anything else. From the very beginning there was an understanding that the land did not belong to the ranchers. The ranchers never made any improvements or put up fences, or erected any structures, or any of the other things that indicate ownership now did they?

Nope - because they understood from day 1 that this land was not theirs, but they would be allowed to graze their cattle their as long as they abide by the rules. The rules changed. This guy paid his fees for x number of years - an indication of his consent to the rules. Allowing cows to graze on the land is not "mixing work and the land." The cows who were grazing were the only ones doing any "work." So by your standard, the cows own the land.

Later - he decides he disagrees with the rules. He'll pay his grazing fees to the county, but not the Feds.

All these facts indicate that Bundy 1) acknowledged the land was not his 2) acknowledged his debt for grazing fees

Just because you suddenly don't agree with a law, doesn't mean you have the right to take up arms in order to disobey that law.

Your contention that Bundy (even though he doesn't realize it) owns the land, is indefensible.

I'm going to address your last sentence first. What a person might think does not necessarily equate to the truth of a situation. A person can have little or no knowledge of the principle of homesteading, which seems to be the case with Bundy, but whether the principle is true or not has nothing to do with this person's knowledge. If they homestead unowned land, but have no knowledge of the homesteading principle, does that mean they did not homestead the land? Now you can disagree with the principle, of course, but you cannot deny that, whether they knew this is what they were doing or not, the ranchers clearly homesteaded land that was unowned and unoccupied at the time.

Now to address your receipt argument. This goes back to the principle of homesteading, and whether or not you agree with it. In my opinion, the people who mixed their labor with this land originally are the proper owners of the land regardless of whether they were given a "receipt," or some other form of arbitrary sanction by the government. There is clearly nobody with a better claim, at the very least. The simple fact is that there is no "receipt" because they are the original owners of the land. I only received a receipt to prove my ownership of this computer because I am not the original owner of the computer, but they were the original owners of the land so there was nobody in any position to give them a receipt.

Now it would at least appear as if you believe that any land that is unowned or unoccupied is somehow automatically the property of the federal government, but I don't see any logic to that position. You can correct me on that if I'm wrong.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I also love the emphasis on this rancher facing "armed" federal agents.

LOL - HE picked up his gun and invited his neighbors to join him in a range war.

I guess the Feds should have just brought lollipops

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Allowing cattle to eat grass on some land does not mean you own the land. There are steps you must take to secure ownership. Those steps were never taken.

The fact that neither side is debating who owns the land makes it a moot point.

You're blinded by the idea that property rights must be endorsed and sanctioned by the government, but that's simply not the case.

Explain to us how the federal government has a property right in land that it has never used at all, over the people who mixed their labor with that land.

Because the Feds have owned the land since they won it in the Mexican War AND paid $15,000,000 for it.

Mexican Cession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As violence confers no actual property right all that can be said here is that one criminal gang "won" territory from another. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am not blinded by anything. I accept that there are laws that cover land ownership, and that the federal gov't does, in fact, own land.

If you would like to convince the people to reduce or remove these laws, I will be behind you. But until those laws are removed, they stand to be enforced.

If I owned land that I was intentionally allowing to remain wild, by your rules, someone else could come in and work it and change the ownership of that land.

The federal government "owns" land because the federal government has simply declared it to be so, and it has backed this claim up with the threat of violence. As we are seeing here. It has done nothing to take legitimate ownership of any land, however.

A bad law is no law at all, and should not be enforced.

That just goes to show you don't understand the principle of ownership. Once somebody has mixed their labor with unowned land, then nobody else can come along and mix their labor and claim ownership.

So, who owned the land BEFORE the Federal government "simply declared it to be so"?

It would depend on the land in question. In this case, I've already pointed out who owned the land: the ranchers who mixed their labor with it.

 

[Moonglow]

no he did not, gheesh!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am not blinded by anything. I accept that there are laws that cover land ownership, and that the federal gov't does, in fact, own land.

If you would like to convince the people to reduce or remove these laws, I will be behind you. But until those laws are removed, they stand to be enforced.

If I owned land that I was intentionally allowing to remain wild, by your rules, someone else could come in and work it and change the ownership of that land.

The federal government "owns" land because the federal government has simply declared it to be so, and it has backed this claim up with the threat of violence. As we are seeing here. It has done nothing to take legitimate ownership of any land, however.

A bad law is no law at all, and should not be enforced.

That just goes to show you don't understand the principle of ownership. Once somebody has mixed their labor with unowned land, then nobody else can come along and mix their labor and claim ownership.

Care to prove that the Bundy family mixed their sweat with anything on the public lands??

The fact that they've been using that land, along with other ranchers who also have a property right in the land, for generations is proof enough. Care to prove that the federal government mixed their labor with the land?

 

[MisterBeale]

Do you mean "NOT quite that simple" ?

I've read his position - he's full of crap. He's a welfare cowboy whose family has been feeding off the public trough for 127 years. And he has 14 children to boot. He can't afford to pay for his cattle's feed, but he keeps cranking out kids that the taxpayers are gonna have to support as well.

This is the definition of generational welfare.

Yes, thank you.

I fail to see how this is any different than the mineral rights that the government gives to the oil companies. Please, do elucidate me.

Oh, wait. You need cheap gas. That's the difference.

Well, guess what? I'm primarily a vegetarian. The only time I buy beef is from ranchers like these. You know how much a pound of ground beef is from grass fed beef? About $12/lb. If we let the factory farms use the BLM to force these farmers out of business, you won't have that option anymore. Do you really know where most of your beef really comes from?

You will be left with beef polluted with bovine growth hormones, mad cow disease, super antibiotic resistant pathogens, & just generally nasty rotten stinking meat.

You really don't want to know where that shit you buy at Wal-Mart comes from. It certainly doesn't come from ranchers like this guys.

I buy grass fed beef in GA. It is mostly grown in GA and AL. I agree that there is a huge problem with the factory farms.

But that is not the issue here. This man has been stealing feed for his commercial cattle operation for 21 years. In 1998 he was ordered to stop grazing his cattle on public land by a federal judge. And now, 16 years later, the feds are finally removing his cattle.

And if grass-fed beef is so expensive, why won't Bundy pay the increase in grazing fees, like every other rancher using public lands?

Again, I think Bundy was agreeable to paying the increase in grazing fees. I think the issue is much more complex than it is being portrayed in the media. I think it has much more to do with a turtle which Bundy felt he had no input on. Likewise, I believe this had something to do with the calculations on the fee which made it no longer economical to raise cattle in the area which he was raising cattle. I believe I even read or heard somewhere that the other ranchers in the area already packed it in.

I wish I could tell you, but again, I don't know all the information. What I do know are some facts. The facts I do know don't add up. There is something fishy going on. If it costs more to remove the cattle than he owes in fees, then there is some political reason why those cattle need to go. I am guessing that the factory farms that sell beef in Nevada donate to Harry Reid and they don't want grass fed beef available in Nevada. Just a hypothesis.

This would be the NORMAL fee schedule, the one HE agreed to go by. But this is NOT the table they were using on him.
http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/info/newsroom/2013/january/blm_and_forest_service.html

This issue is far more complex, with much more data than we are being presented, we would need the actual evidence presented from the EPA, the added fee to HIS costs over and above what most ranchers would have to pay, and why he declined to pay them because of this tortoise.

Is this one tortoise a good enough reason to bankrupt generations of livelihood of this family? Should the government have paid to relocate the entire wealth and livelihood of this family if these bureaucrats were going to make these decisions unilaterally? I cannot answer these questions. What I can say, is that I do understand the man's frustration. He provided an honest living and service to society, and bureaucrats levied, taxed, and lawyered his lifestyle and families way of life out from under him. Deeming the existence of a reptile more important than his children and his grandchildren, and the service he provided to his countrymen.

Wouldn't you be pissed, waking up wondering what the hell happened to the nation you had once loved?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That just goes to show you don't understand the principle of ownership. Once somebody has mixed their labor with unowned land, then nobody else can come along and mix their labor and claim ownership.

Since when is grazing "labor"

Is watching your cows graze all that ranchers do? I myself am not a rancher, and claim no expertise on the subject of ranching, but it seems to me that there's far more to it than simply letting your herd roam. Regardless, if you can find somebody with a better claim to having mixed their labor with the land then I'd be willing to hear about it. Unfortunately, it almost certainly is not going to be the federal government who does not engage in any actual labor.

 

[regent]

Land ownership is becoming complicated. Columbus just planted a flag and claimed all the land as belonging to Spain, now we have to put grazing animals on land to declare ownership.
If one can claim land because his animals eat the produce of the land, how about the opposite, can I claim my neighbor's yard if my dog craps there?
Maybe some rules should be created regarding land ownership. sort of like we do with automobiles?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Here is a video I found in a newstory today about Bundy Ranch. Apparently there was a sort of riot out there with protestors blocking the roads to keep backhoes from going in to kill and bury Mr. Bundy's cattle. That was their claim. You can watch the video and see what you think. 3/4 through video you see the law enforcement / fed agents withdrew and left peacefully. Hope that is the end of it now.

They should settle the matter in court - whoever is right - let a judge decide.

[ame=http://youtu.be/LhJ6H9vlEDA]Ranch Riot!! Bundy Ranch Protesters Tasered by Federal Agents and Attacked by K9's. - YouTube[/ame]



* I didn't mention this before but I should have. I think David Koresh was in the wrong to not be open and willing to talk to the authorities from the beginning. He should have met with them openly and by not doing so he gave them reason to believe he was hiding something. If the kids were endangered as the later reports indicated, that could have been a factor in deciding to go in. I don't know as I didn't follow the story years ago. Still in this matter all parties involved know it could be settled in court. That is the right way to proceed. imo.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Next, the ranchers will want to graze their cattle in Yellowstone National Park for free, and kill all the Buffalo, deer and elk, so the cattle will have enough grass. I'm sure you wouldn't mind them grazing in your yard, huh.

Are you actually as stupid as your present yourself?

Do you live in an institution? I assume you need others to feed you.

 

[paulitician]

I really do fear for this man and his family's safety. Sadly, I don't think Big Brother would have any problem killing this man and his family over some grazing cattle. It just wouldn't surprise me these days.

 

[WinterBorn]

I really do fear for this man and his family's safety. Sadly, I don't think Big Brother would have any problem killing this man and his family over some grazing cattle. It just wouldn't surprise me these days.

They aren't there after him. They are there to remove his cattle from the public lands, as a federal judge ordered him to do in 1998.