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

[nodoginnafight]

The land was open range. The government declared it government land. They didn't pay for it. They didn't do anything that Bundy didn't do. Except the Bundys had cattle on that land for 140 years.

Apparently they DID pay for it.

You need to read up on this a little more

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Let's remove the ranchers from the equation for a second, and discuss where the federal government got its claim to the land. I don't think we've adequately explained where their supposed right to this land comes from. We can obviously rule out the idea that the U.S. government homesteaded the land.

Some people have mentioned the Mexican War, which rests on the assumption that the U.S. government owns this land because it violently took this land from the Mexican government and paid them a pittance for it, but this fails any kind of logical test. I'll go back to my computer, if I had simply walked into the store, punched the sales person in the nose, given them a $10 bill and walked out with the computer would I have a right to this computer? Obviously not. So how does force create a legitimate claim in one scenario, but not in another? Furthermore, it's not clear that the Mexican government had any legitimate claim to the land in the first place, because chances are they simply used force to take it as well.

However, if we accept that force is a legitimate means to acquire property, then what exactly is the problem with what's going on with the ranchers now? The Bundys have rounded up a posse and are attempting to take that land by force from the federal government. If we accept that force is legitimate, then the only logical position to take from there is that we have to wait and see which side wins the fight before we can say that they do or do not have a legitimate claim to the land.

Does nobody see this as being worth a discussion?

Kevin, the fact that we paid the Mexican government anything for the land makes it a lot better than how nations have acquired land historically - which is they take it by force. "The right of conquest."

By your logic, whichever organism climbed from the ocean first "owns" the land.

What is so illogical about the evolution of property law to you?

The question isn't whether the U.S. did it better than they might have done, the simple fact is that they acquired this property through the use of force.

There's nothing illogical about the evolution of property law to me, but I find the government's claim to this land completely illogical. I'm hoping to find somebody willing to discuss the issue though, which will hopefully bring fresh insights to all of us.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Does nobody see this as being worth a discussion?

Sure. I think the discussion of property rights is very much worthy of discussion.

My only contention is that it has no bearing here.

How can the government's claim to this property have no bearing here? It's foundational to this issue.

Because the government's ownership of the land has been legally established.

You want to undo that, rewrite property law, and make it retroactive for a few centuries so that it fits your perception of what property law SHOULD be? Fine - it still doesn't mean squat in this case until you get that done.

You are asking for a theoretical discussion on what property law SHOULD be. That's OK, but it doesn't mean a darn thing to THIS case.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sure. I think the discussion of property rights is very much worthy of discussion.

My only contention is that it has no bearing here.

How can the government's claim to this property have no bearing here? It's foundational to this issue.

Bundy had no issue with the gov't owning the land prior to 1993. He paid the grazing fees and did not argue. He has also stated that the land is public land.

Which, as I've pointed out previously, is irrelevant. That he takes it for granted doesn't mean that we should.

 

[boedicca]

Jesus Christ, I'm seeing a whole lot of contorting to try and make this seem like the Government or whomever is doing something wrong. He kept his stuff on Land that ISN'T HIS, if I park my car on your lawn you can have it towed because IT'S ON YOUR LAND. This is literally no different, except this idiot had 16 years time to comply.

He's dumb, and finally it caught up to him, Cry me a river.

If you park your car where it is not allowed, it gets impounded and towed.

In this case, the Feds confiscated his cattle to sell. That is THEFT.

They aren't confiscating the cattle to sell. They are killing the cattle and burying the bodies.

I heard on the news they were selling the cattle - but killing them and burying the bodies is just another form of theft.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sure. I think the discussion of property rights is very much worthy of discussion.

My only contention is that it has no bearing here.

How can the government's claim to this property have no bearing here? It's foundational to this issue.

Because the government's ownership of the land has been legally established.

You want to undo that, rewrite property law, and make it retroactive for a few centuries so that it fits your perception of what property law SHOULD be? Fine - it still doesn't mean squat in this case until you get that done.

And it's the government which declares what is legal. Forgive me if I think we can go a bit deeper in our analysis.

 

[Mustang]

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®

Bundy and the right seem to be in a contest to see which one can outkook the other. Bundy acknowledges that the land is, and was, PUBLIC land. That means it was not, and IS not, his private property.

So, could someone PLEASE tell me why this idiot thinks he has any standing to "fire" the BLM? And what the hell are preemptive rights supposed to be?

It sounds like the guy needs a psych evaluation. Naturally, his lunacy makes him the perfect new hero of the right.

 

[WinterBorn]

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®

Bundy and the right seem to be in a contest to see which one can out kook the other. Bundy acknowledges that the land is and was PUBLIC land. That means it was not and IS not his private property.

So, could someone PLEASE tell me why thid idiot thinks he has any standing to "fire" the BLM? And what the hell are preemptive rights supposed to be?

It sounds like the guy needs a psych evaluation. Naturally, his lunacy makes him the perfect new hero of the right.

His ideas about preemptive rights is hilarious. Since he has been there longer than the BLM, he doesn't think he has to follow their laws. lol

 

[boedicca]

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®

Bundy and the right seem to be in a contest to see which one can out kook the other. Bundy acknowledges that the land is and was PUBLIC land. That means it was not and IS not his private property.

So, could someone PLEASE tell me why thid idiot thinks he has any standing to "fire" the BLM? And what the hell are preemptive rights supposed to be?

It sounds like the guy needs a psych evaluation. Naturally, his lunacy makes him the perfect new hero of the right.

His ideas about preemptive rights is hilarious. Since he has been there longer than the BLM, he doesn't think he has to follow their laws. lol

Let's see how you feel if the Feds move in and declare your backyard "protected wetlands" because of a rain puddle, and order you to tear down your house.

 

[WinterBorn]

If you park your car where it is not allowed, it gets impounded and towed.

In this case, the Feds confiscated his cattle to sell. That is THEFT.

They aren't confiscating the cattle to sell. They are killing the cattle and burying the bodies.

I heard on the news they were selling the cattle - but killing them and burying the bodies is just another form of theft.

So what would you suggest? Let the cattle keep grazing and getting fatter so the rancher can make more money off them?

He was ordered to remove the cattle from the public lands 16 years ago. How long do the feds have to wait? Or do we just let him ignore the rulings as long as he wants?

 

[boedicca]

They aren't confiscating the cattle to sell. They are killing the cattle and burying the bodies.

I heard on the news they were selling the cattle - but killing them and burying the bodies is just another form of theft.

So what would you suggest? Let the cattle keep grazing and getting fatter so the rancher can make more money off them?

He was ordered to remove the cattle from the public lands 16 years ago. How long do the feds have to wait? Or do we just let him ignore the rulings as long as he wants?

What I would suggest is that the Federal Government not be in the business of owning land, other than military bases and other buildings necessary for the proper functions of the government.

The rancher's family had grazed that land long before the Feds showed any interest in it. Now it is being used to eco-terrorize the rancher and his family. It's a form of fascism.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Bundy and the right seem to be in a contest to see which one can out kook the other. Bundy acknowledges that the land is and was PUBLIC land. That means it was not and IS not his private property.

So, could someone PLEASE tell me why thid idiot thinks he has any standing to "fire" the BLM? And what the hell are preemptive rights supposed to be?

It sounds like the guy needs a psych evaluation. Naturally, his lunacy makes him the perfect new hero of the right.

His ideas about preemptive rights is hilarious. Since he has been there longer than the BLM, he doesn't think he has to follow their laws. lol

Let's see how you feel if the Feds move in and declare your backyard "protected wetlands" because of a rain puddle, and order you to tear down your house.

That's not even close to what happened.

 

[WinterBorn]

Bundy and the right seem to be in a contest to see which one can out kook the other. Bundy acknowledges that the land is and was PUBLIC land. That means it was not and IS not his private property.

So, could someone PLEASE tell me why thid idiot thinks he has any standing to "fire" the BLM? And what the hell are preemptive rights supposed to be?

It sounds like the guy needs a psych evaluation. Naturally, his lunacy makes him the perfect new hero of the right.

His ideas about preemptive rights is hilarious. Since he has been there longer than the BLM, he doesn't think he has to follow their laws. lol

Let's see how you feel if the Feds move in and declare your backyard "protected wetlands" because of a rain puddle, and order you to tear down your house.

I would, obviously, not be happy about it. But I would certainy not try to claim that, since I have lived in the house longer than the EPA has been around, I don't have to listen to them.

And that is a bit different than what is happening in Nevada. The rancher does not own the land. It is public land. He stopped paying the grazing fees 21 years ago, and was ordered by a federal judge to remove his cattle from the public lands 16 years ago.

 

[boedicca]

His ideas about preemptive rights is hilarious. Since he has been there longer than the BLM, he doesn't think he has to follow their laws. lol

Let's see how you feel if the Feds move in and declare your backyard "protected wetlands" because of a rain puddle, and order you to tear down your house.

I would, obviously, not be happy about it. But I would certainy not try to claim that, since I have lived in the house longer than the EPA has been around, I don't have to listen to them.

And that is a bit different than what is happening in Nevada. The rancher does not own the land. It is public land. He stopped paying the grazing fees 21 years ago, and was ordered by a federal judge to remove his cattle from the public lands 16 years ago.

It's not at all different. The land has been ranched by the family for decades. The eco-terrorist regulations being used to drive the rancher out of business were made "after the fact". It's a disgraceful abuse of government power.

 

[WinterBorn]

I heard on the news they were selling the cattle - but killing them and burying the bodies is just another form of theft.

So what would you suggest? Let the cattle keep grazing and getting fatter so the rancher can make more money off them?

He was ordered to remove the cattle from the public lands 16 years ago. How long do the feds have to wait? Or do we just let him ignore the rulings as long as he wants?

What I would suggest is that the Federal Government not be in the business of owning land, other than military bases and other buildings necessary for the proper functions of the government.

The rancher's family had grazed that land long before the Feds showed any interest in it. Now it is being used to eco-terrorize the rancher and his family. It's a form of fascism.

Pure horseshit!! The only ones terrorizing anyne is the rancher and his friends threatening the contractors who are removing the cattle. They have tried to block the roads and followed the truck on numerous occasions.

The land is public. If you want no public lands, then start campaigning for that. I think you will find it hard to sell the idea that we need to get rid of the national parks, wildlife refuges and the like. But until the law changes, those who break it will eventually lose.

This guy got 21 years of free grazing on land he didn't own. That is a pretty good deal.

Now they will sell his cattle. I'm betting he could get the money that was left after the pay his fines, pay his grazing fees, and pay the contractors who moved the cattle.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

in the bigger picture.....Obama and the environmental lefties have been land grabbing for years from the states.....this way they can control the oil and gas and other resources as well as push forward their 'green agenda'....

the Feds already own 80% of Nevada land....guess Harry Reid wants to get all of it under Fed control...

DEMINT: White House land grab - Washington Times

 

[Vandalshandle]

I think that, to be fair, the government should make a deal with this rancher. He can continue to graze his cattle on government land, and the government can expand their nuclear waste storage dump to include the ranchers land.

 

[bendog]

Jesus Christ, I'm seeing a whole lot of contorting to try and make this seem like the Government or whomever is doing something wrong. He kept his stuff on Land that ISN'T HIS, if I park my car on your lawn you can have it towed because IT'S ON YOUR LAND. This is literally no different, except this idiot had 16 years time to comply.

He's dumb, and finally it caught up to him, Cry me a river.

If you park your car where it is not allowed, it gets impounded and towed.

In this case, the Feds confiscated his cattle to sell. That is THEFT.

Actually, if you don't come and pay the fine THEY CAN SELL YOUR CAR.

 

[WinterBorn]

Let's see how you feel if the Feds move in and declare your backyard "protected wetlands" because of a rain puddle, and order you to tear down your house.

I would, obviously, not be happy about it. But I would certainy not try to claim that, since I have lived in the house longer than the EPA has been around, I don't have to listen to them.

And that is a bit different than what is happening in Nevada. The rancher does not own the land. It is public land. He stopped paying the grazing fees 21 years ago, and was ordered by a federal judge to remove his cattle from the public lands 16 years ago.

It's not at all different. The land has been ranched by the family for decades. The eco-terrorist regulations being used to drive the rancher out of business were made "after the fact". It's a disgraceful abuse of government power.

The family grazed their cattle on land they did not own. That was common practice in the 1880s, but became less and less common. In the 1920s Utah was at the forefront of fighting against "free grazers".

The rules changed and the gov't owns the land.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Let's see how you feel if the Feds move in and declare your backyard "protected wetlands" because of a rain puddle, and order you to tear down your house.

I would, obviously, not be happy about it. But I would certainy not try to claim that, since I have lived in the house longer than the EPA has been around, I don't have to listen to them.

And that is a bit different than what is happening in Nevada. The rancher does not own the land. It is public land. He stopped paying the grazing fees 21 years ago, and was ordered by a federal judge to remove his cattle from the public lands 16 years ago.

It's not at all different. The land has been ranched by the family for decades. The eco-terrorist regulations being used to drive the rancher out of business were made "after the fact". It's a disgraceful abuse of government power.

This has nothing to do with "Eco-regulations".

This has to do with the fact that Bundy has refused to pay grazing fees for more than 20 years. It's really as simple as that.