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

[bendog]

Except the legal battles over this guy's non-payment have been going on for more than a decade

Not really.

There was a hearing 18 years ago - then nothing, until 2013 - right as the crises with cattle came to a boil.

If you really want to hurt the middle class, drive food and energy costs up sharply....

It's clearly Michelle's obsession with our eating animal fats and her desire to make us all dependent upon soy.

 

[RKMBrown]

leave your car on gov't property for 21 years without paying and see if they don't sell your car to pay the fines and fees.

leave your car on your own property and then see the feds to nationalize your property is a more apt analogy.

except that the rancher doesn't own the land ....

huh?

 

[nodoginnafight]

leave your car on your own property and then see the feds to nationalize your property is a more apt analogy.

except that the rancher doesn't own the land ....

huh?

I'm sorry - I'll speak up.

THIS RANCHER DOESN'T OWN THE LAND

 

[theDoctorisIn]

B'loney. The rancher's family had used that land without paying fees for decades. The Feds are trying to harass him out of business. It's also eco-terrorism. The Fed's have declared the grazing area a protective habitat for a tortoise.

3. That area has NOT been declared a "protective habitat" for the tortoise. It's still BLM land, and all of the ranchers that followed the law are still grazing there.

He's the last cattle rancher in that area (Clark Co.) If yer' gonna lick boots, get it right.

Link?

 

[bendog]

leave your car on your own property and then see the feds to nationalize your property is a more apt analogy.

except that the rancher doesn't own the land ....

huh?

He had a blm lease, but didn't pay up, so a fed judge ordered him off the land over a decade ago, but he won't go.

 

[RKMBrown]

except that the rancher doesn't own the land ....

huh?

He had a blm lease, but didn't pay up, so a fed judge ordered him off the land over a decade ago, but he won't go.

Who gave the feds the right to lease his land back to him? The feds?

 

[RKMBrown]

except that the rancher doesn't own the land ....

huh?

I'm sorry - I'll speak up.

THIS RANCHER DOESN'T OWN THE LAND

Ok who does. Can you provide the link to individual bill of sale specifying who owns the land?

Forgive me but I always thought we, the collective we, owned this country, not specific government individuals. Government workers, are our employees, not our slave masters as the democrats would have us believe.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

No it's not.

But there are cases that are just about that egregious.

This just ain't one of 'em.

 

[bendog]

3. That area has NOT been declared a "protective habitat" for the tortoise. It's still BLM land, and all of the ranchers that followed the law are still grazing there.

He's the last cattle rancher in that area (Clark Co.) If yer' gonna lick boots, get it right.

Link?

Bundy says he "fired the BLM," and vows not to pay the agency he accuses of plotting his demise.

A father of 14, Bundy insists that generations of his family have ranched and worked this unforgiving landscape along the Virgin River since the 1880s. He says government over-regulation has driven scores of fellow ranchers out of business in sprawling Clark County, leaving him the last man standing.


'Range war' with BLM: Hundreds rally for Nevada cattle rancher - latimes.com

 

[nodoginnafight]

huh?

I'm sorry - I'll speak up.

THIS RANCHER DOESN'T OWN THE LAND

Ok who does. Can you provide the link to the land owner?

LOL - seriously?
It's federal land. No one disputes that at all. Read ANY article from the source of your choice.

here's the first from a google search
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/04/10/rancher-nevada-public-lands/7540911/

 

[B. Kidd]

3. That area has NOT been declared a "protective habitat" for the tortoise. It's still BLM land, and all of the ranchers that followed the law are still grazing there.

He's the last cattle rancher in that area (Clark Co.) If yer' gonna lick boots, get it right.

Link?

Peruse 'Current Events' forum where I originally posted this topic last week. It's in one of my linked articles in there. (Sheesh, you want me to read it to you too?)

 

[bendog]

huh?

He had a blm lease, but didn't pay up, so a fed judge ordered him off the land over a decade ago, but he won't go.

Who gave the feds the right to lease his land back to him? The feds?

Neither he, nor his forefathers, ever owned the land. For F's sake man, you're from the west. Have you no knowledge of free grazing, range wars and the Taylor Land Act?

 

[Mustang]

B'loney. The rancher's family had used that land without paying fees for decades. The Feds are trying to harass him out of business. It's also eco-terrorism. The Fed's have declared the grazing area a protective habitat for a tortoise.

1. The rancher's family had been allowed to graze for free on federal land until the Taylor land use act was passed, creating the BLM.

2. No one is "harassing him out of business". He's been actively and admittedly breaking the law for more than 20 years.

3. That area has NOT been declared a "protective habitat" for the tortoise. It's still BLM land, and all of the ranchers that followed the law are still grazing there.

The family started ranching the area in the 1870s. The feds moved in and interfered with their property rights. You can use whatever apparatchik excuse you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an abuse of government power and an infringement on states' rights.

Why should the Federal government control so much land? There is no national security interest in this.

A person doesn't have property rights on land they don't own. Bundy was damn fortunate to be able to graze his cattle on land that wasn't his for years without paying grazing fees. Obviously, he seems to think that by doing that for years, that gave him a right to do so. He's wrong. That didn't automatically give him the right to have his cattle graze on that land anymore than you have a right to continue parking your car in a vacant lot next door to your house if and when the legal owner decides to sell it or build on it after letting it sit vacant for years.

Undoubtedly, the gov't could take an even harder line if it wanted and try to recoup some of those grazing fees. Bundy should be grateful that he's getting off so easy, but instead he's decided to try to continue to get something for nothing as if he's entitled to it. He sounds like one of those takers the right is always complaining about.

 

[RKMBrown]

He had a blm lease, but didn't pay up, so a fed judge ordered him off the land over a decade ago, but he won't go.

Who gave the feds the right to lease his land back to him? The feds?

Neither he, nor his forefathers, ever owned the land. For F's sake man, you're from the west. Have you no knowledge of free grazing, range wars and the Taylor Land Act?

Yeah that's my point.

You don't need to own public lands to use public lands. For the feds to be trying to take away this guys liberty to free graze on public lands is just plain wrong, legal as it may be, it's still just plain wrong. Worse, we are paying them tens of millions of dollars to try to stop this guy from free grazing public land with cattle. For what? To protect some lizard? To stop the cows from taking a shit?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

I'll say, 21 years to enforce the law! Disgraceful abuse or lack of enforcement? At 2 dollars a head, that's Terrorist prices huh?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

huh?

I'm sorry - I'll speak up.

THIS RANCHER DOESN'T OWN THE LAND

Ok who does. Can you provide the link to individual bill of sale specifying who owns the land?

Forgive me but I always thought we, the collective we, owned this country, not specific government individuals. Government workers, are our employees, not our slave masters as the democrats would have us believe.

What wasn't mentioned is that Mr. Bundys family owned all that land until the govt seized it over the desert tortoise. It was legal to graze until 98'. Still his family were the land owners as I understand it and now it belongs to Cook County he said.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm sorry - I'll speak up.

THIS RANCHER DOESN'T OWN THE LAND

Ok who does. Can you provide the link to individual bill of sale specifying who owns the land?

Forgive me but I always thought we, the collective we, owned this country, not specific government individuals. Government workers, are our employees, not our slave masters as the democrats would have us believe.

What wasn't mentioned is that Mr. Bundys family owned all that land until the govt seized it over the desert tortoise. It was legal to graze until 98'. Still his family were the land owners as I understand it and now it belongs to Cook County he said.

Figures. The turtles are probably happy to share the land with the cows. Was the rancher seeking out turtle eggs and trampling them for sport or something?

 

[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.

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

IF you don't come and pay. That's a lot different than selling the car or destroying it without giving you a chance to do so.

In the case of the rancher, he has a valid dispute that he should even have to pay - and the government is engaging in defacto terrorism against him and his family.

The BLM raised the grazing fee and the rancher stopped paying completely. Then he kept grazing his cattle for 21 years. No, he does not have a dispute. He has a large debt.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

IF you don't come and pay. That's a lot different than selling the car or destroying it without giving you a chance to do so.

In the case of the rancher, he has a valid dispute that he should even have to pay - and the government is engaging in defacto terrorism against him and his family.

The BLM raised the grazing fee and the rancher stopped paying completely. Then he kept grazing his cattle for 21 years. No, he does not have a dispute. He has a large debt.

Or we need to put the BLM out of commission.

 

[bendog]

I'm sorry - I'll speak up.

THIS RANCHER DOESN'T OWN THE LAND

Ok who does. Can you provide the link to individual bill of sale specifying who owns the land?

Forgive me but I always thought we, the collective we, owned this country, not specific government individuals. Government workers, are our employees, not our slave masters as the democrats would have us believe.

What wasn't mentioned is that Mr. Bundys family owned all that land until the govt seized it over the desert tortoise. It was legal to graze until 98'. Still his family were the land owners as I understand it and now it belongs to Cook County he said.

Do you have a link to the rancher owning the land up until 1998?