Conservative Action Alerts and Nevada Rancher

[bodecea]

Your finding the idea humorous doesn't change the fact that a great many Americans are worried that the federal gov. wants to establish a tyranny. Adding support to that idea is indeed idiotic.

You think the public is trespassing on public land?

I think running a commercial cattle operation on public lands, while refusing to pay the grazing fees and ignoring a federal judge's order to remove the cattle is trespassing.

Perhaps you haven't read the 5th Amendment then? That's his land. It has been for 140 years. He has rights under imminent domain law. The government cannot just up and seize land from someone without just compensation. His family was there long before the BLM was ever established. The land was probably granted to his ancestors under the now defunct homestead acts of the early 1800's and the Preemption Act of 1841. The BLM itself wasn't formed until 1946.

The land isn't his....he even acknowledges it isn't his. You're just getting silly now.

 

[WinterBorn]

Hey doc, his family has been on that land since the 1870s. His land. The 5th Amendment requires the government to compensate him if they are to take his land for any reason. If not, they should leave him alone. The only laws he broke are ones that would only be in effect if he were on government land.

Moreover, in 1998, the BLM designated over 180,000 acres of the Gold Butte Area as "critical" for the survival of a tortoise. You really need to educate yourself. Really.

Southern Nevada District Office

His family has grazed their cattle on that land since the 1870s. They have never owned the land - it's been owned by the Federal government since it stopped being part of Mexico.

And whether or not the BLM has declared areas "critical" back in 1998 has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on now.

And just how do you know it's "not his land"? Are you at all aware of the Homestead Acts? Or the Preemption Act of 1841? How else would his family have been there for the past 140 years?

And it has plenty to do with what's going on now. You have the rights of a rancher being usurped by an animal.

The main way I have seen that it is not, and never has been, their land is that the rancher himself says it is public land.

Oh, and if they owned the land (or had any claim to it), he would not have paid the grazing fees from the begining.

And also, if the family owned the 600,000 acres in question, they have never paid any taxes on them. The back-taxes are going to be a pretty penny, dontcha think?

 

[bodecea]

Hey doc, his family has been on that land since the 1870s. His land. The 5th Amendment requires the government to compensate him if they are to take his land for any reason. If not, they should leave him alone. The only laws he broke are ones that would only be in effect if he were on government land.

Moreover, in 1998, the BLM designated over 180,000 acres of the Gold Butte Area as "critical" for the survival of a tortoise. You really need to educate yourself. Really.

Southern Nevada District Office

His family has grazed their cattle on that land since the 1870s. They have never owned the land - it's been owned by the Federal government since it stopped being part of Mexico.

And whether or not the BLM has declared areas "critical" back in 1998 has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on now.

And just how do you know it's "not his land"? Are you at all aware of the Homestead Acts? Or the Preemption Act of 1841? How else would his family have been there for the past 140 years?

And it has plenty to do with what's going on now. You have the rights of a rancher being usurped by an animal.

Geesh....dig your hole deeper, why don't you?

 

[emilynghiem]

Interesting how no one on the left is commenting on the fact that the BLM have actually set up a First Amendment area.

Hey that's more than we got in Freedmen's Town, when the City abused Federal Courts to force eviction and demolition of a national historic housing complex and military landmark. They committed perjury in court, lying about historic gravesites on the land, and censored the residents plans to preserve the buildings by renovating them as a campus.

Just because it is "public land" does not give them authority to violate inalienable rights.
But I witnessed Federal Govt abused to violate "inalienable rights" of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Govt for a redress of grievances, because of political conflicts of interests with the City and lack of legal defense and equal Constitutional protections.

Govt positions, greater collective authority and public resources were abuse to exclude, censor, and destroy plans representing the residents, who even wrote and passed legislation to elect and run their own democratic council to implement restoration plans, with equal rights to preserve history as the developers interests; but were not treated or protected equally by politically biased government officials with conflicting interests.

If I want a First Amendment area set up, how do we get one?

Or get it back, where Court ruling originally seized the land by eminent domain before pulling this stunt to prevent residents from preserving national history built over and on top?

Maybe we should team up: between this Lone Rancher, the native descendants in Hawaii still seeking sovereignty restored from illegal seizure by govt, and the few people left in Freedmen's Town despite legalized genocide by corporate abuse of govt.

And create a "First Amendment area" where the twelve of us can protest collectively!
The few people left willing to stand up to federal govt to reclaim land so we can be equal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think running a commercial cattle operation on public lands, while refusing to pay the grazing fees and ignoring a federal judge's order to remove the cattle is trespassing.

Perhaps you haven't read the 5th Amendment then? That's his land. It has been for 140 years. He has rights under imminent domain law. The government cannot just up and seize land from someone without just compensation. His family was there long before the BLM was ever established. The land was probably granted to his ancestors under the now defunct homestead acts of the early 1800's and the Preemption Act of 1841. The BLM itself wasn't formed until 1946.

The land was still owned by the federal government before the BLM was formed.

His family never owned the land.

You have no way to prove that, Doc. In fact, under the Homestead acts that land was made available for settlement! You've got to be kidding me here. If you have proof that the land was federally owned before he or his family got there, or before the BLM was formed, I'd like to see it.

 

[Plasmaball]

His family has grazed their cattle on that land since the 1870s. They have never owned the land - it's been owned by the Federal government since it stopped being part of Mexico.

And whether or not the BLM has declared areas "critical" back in 1998 has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on now.

And just how do you know it's "not his land"? Are you at all aware of the Homestead Acts? Or the Preemption Act of 1841? How else would his family have been there for the past 140 years?

And it has plenty to do with what's going on now. You have the rights of a rancher being usurped by an animal.

Even he isn't claiming he owns the land, or that his family ever has.

And the tortoise is entirely irrelevant because it has nothing to do with why his cattle are being evicted.

not true about the turtle.
U.S. seizes cattle in rare fight over federal land use in Nevada | Reuters

The dispute in Nevada came to a boiling point after environmentalists told federal land managers they planned to sue to protect a threatened tortoise whose habitat was being destroyed by grazing cattle.

The Nevada roundup follows a decades-long conflict between Cliven Bundy and U.S. land managers over a grazing allotment that spans nearly 600,000 acres of federal range and park lands in the southern Nevada desert.

Bundy stopped paying grazing fees of about $1.35 a month per cow-calf pair in 1993, ignored the government's cancellation of his leases and defied federal court orders to remove his cattle, according to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. But it took more than 20 years for the government to forcefully intervene.

for the people who think its not the feds land.

 

[B. Kidd]

His family has grazed their cattle on that land since the 1870s. They have never owned the land - it's been owned by the Federal government since it stopped being part of Mexico.

And whether or not the BLM has declared areas "critical" back in 1998 has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on now.

And just how do you know it's "not his land"? Are you at all aware of the Homestead Acts? Or the Preemption Act of 1841? How else would his family have been there for the past 140 years?

And it has plenty to do with what's going on now. You have the rights of a rancher being usurped by an animal.

Even he isn't claiming he owns the land, or that his family ever has.

And the tortoise is entirely irrelevant because it has nothing to do with why his cattle are being evicted.

The tortoise is not entirely irrevelant. His herd was capped in 1993 due to the desert tortoise and he stopped paying grazing fees in protest. Once again, your fact is false.

 

[Plasmaball]

Perhaps you haven't read the 5th Amendment then? That's his land. It has been for 140 years. He has rights under imminent domain law. The government cannot just up and seize land from someone without just compensation. His family was there long before the BLM was ever established. The land was probably granted to his ancestors under the now defunct homestead acts of the early 1800's and the Preemption Act of 1841. The BLM itself wasn't formed until 1946.

The land was still owned by the federal government before the BLM was formed.

His family never owned the land.

You have no way to prove that, Doc. In fact, under the Homestead acts that land was made available for settlement! You've got to be kidding me here. If you have proof that the land was federally owned before he or his family got there, or before the BLM was formed, I'd like to see it.

The land is federally owned and he was allowed to use it if he paid the fee per cow. He has never "owned the land" seeing how before 1993 he was paying the 1.33 per cow to graze on said federal land.

Do you understand these words? You are wrong.

 

[bodecea]

And just how do you know it's "not his land"? Are you at all aware of the Homestead Acts? Or the Preemption Act of 1841? How else would his family have been there for the past 140 years?

And it has plenty to do with what's going on now. You have the rights of a rancher being usurped by an animal.

Even he isn't claiming he owns the land, or that his family ever has.

And the tortoise is entirely irrelevant because it has nothing to do with why his cattle are being evicted.

The tortoise is not entirely irrevelant. His herd was capped in 1993 due to the desert tortoise and he stopped paying grazing fees in protest. Once again, your fact is false.

He owes a lot of money to the Feds.

 

[B. Kidd]

Even he isn't claiming he owns the land, or that his family ever has.

And the tortoise is entirely irrelevant because it has nothing to do with why his cattle are being evicted.

The tortoise is not entirely irrevelant. His herd was capped in 1993 due to the desert tortoise and he stopped paying grazing fees in protest. Once again, your fact is false.

He owes a lot of money to the Feds.

You mean the taxpayers. The round-up is estimated to cost a least 1 million. I think it'll be closer to 2 million when all is said and done.

 

[emilynghiem]

The main way I have seen that it is not, and never has been, their land is that the rancher himself says it is public land.

Oh, and if they owned the land (or had any claim to it), he would not have paid the grazing fees from the begining.

And also, if the family owned the 600,000 acres in question, they have never paid any taxes on them. The back-taxes are going to be a pretty penny, dontcha think?

Why not organize a HUGE gofundme fundraiser.

Have all the Constitutional secessionists chip in, buy out the land, and set up their own city.
They can fight off big government together, in between hosting Constitutional conventions.

Or, what about people who want amnesty for 12 million illegal or undocumented immigrants: they can buy up land and create a tribal reservation.
Environmentalists can create jobs preserving and breeding endangered turtles, prairie chickens, or even run no-kill shelters out there.

Why not get creative here?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And just how do you know it's "not his land"? Are you at all aware of the Homestead Acts? Or the Preemption Act of 1841? How else would his family have been there for the past 140 years?

And it has plenty to do with what's going on now. You have the rights of a rancher being usurped by an animal.

Even he isn't claiming he owns the land, or that his family ever has.

And the tortoise is entirely irrelevant because it has nothing to do with why his cattle are being evicted.

The tortoise is not entirely irrevelant. His herd was capped in 1993 due to the desert tortoise and he stopped paying grazing fees in protest. Once again, your fact is false.

Sure. But that's not why his cattle are being evicted. They're being evicted because he hasn't paid the fees, not because of the tortoise.

 

[TemplarKormac]

His family has grazed their cattle on that land since the 1870s. They have never owned the land - it's been owned by the Federal government since it stopped being part of Mexico.

And whether or not the BLM has declared areas "critical" back in 1998 has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on now.

And just how do you know it's "not his land"? Are you at all aware of the Homestead Acts? Or the Preemption Act of 1841? How else would his family have been there for the past 140 years?

And it has plenty to do with what's going on now. You have the rights of a rancher being usurped by an animal.

Even he isn't claiming he owns the land, or that his family ever has.

And the tortoise is entirely irrelevant because it has nothing to do with why his cattle are being evicted.

Then why is there a conservation area designated in the Gold Butte area for a land tortoise? Hmm? I just showed you the link. Anyhow:

"If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."

-Cliven Bundy

BLM seizes cattle in range war with stubborn Nevada rancher - latimes.com

"Wake up America. Look what our ancestors fought for and we need to stand up for that. We need to realize what's happening. They are taking everything away from us. This isn't only about one family. This is about everyone's family."

–Bailey Bundy Logue

“My ancestors created the rights to that land one hundred and some odd years ago,” Bundy’s daughter Bailey Logue told The Los Angeles Times. “And we’re not giving them up.”

Feds Force Family Off 120-Year-Old Ranch To Protect Tortoise | Off The Grid News

Read more at 'Wake up America,' says family involved in BLM cattle dispute | KSL.com

 

[Mustang]

After 2 threads on this and numerous references to Waco someone got suspicious. Hat tip No doginna for finding this. Here is the quotes how it happened:

IMHO - the sheer volume of threads and the general lack of information about the issues involved by those who are starting the threads leads me to believe that some right-wing militia - type organization has released an "action alert" trying to whip people up into a frenzy about this.

Have you noticed all the Waco and Ruby Ridge references? I don't think that is an accident - I think they were prompted by the action alert. The Turner Diaries crowd is trying to whip the faithful into a frenzy so they'll grab their guns and rush off to this guys ranch to try to ignite the civil war they've been fantasizing about for so long.

I KNEW IT!
They even used the words "Action Alert"

Last Man Standing: Armed Feds Surround Nevada Rancher?s Property

It contains all of the common misinformation that these threads begin with - like the feds are surrounding this guys ranch, etc ...

The best part honestly is that Paulitician and Lovebear were moved to action from this action alert like a trained monkey.

Whats even better is the comments below the story at: Last Man Standing: Armed Feds Surround Nevada Rancher?s Property

Where they all stand around the camp fire telling each other scary (soon to come) horrors bound to come as they all circle jerk off their misery

Billy Nash · 17 hours ago
Now I know why the government is hoarding ammo. Target practice in Nevada!

@Talon141 · 5 hours ago
This is all about control and trying to control Americans never works because we bite back, that's the reason for the 200 heavily armed pussies surrounding the ranch,this won't turn out good for this family if one of these jack boots gets a itchy trigger finger,look what we have let happen to OUR country,may God help us all !

The right's penchant for misrepresenting the facts on any story reminds me of the Talking Heads song "Once in a Lifetime" near the end when David Byrne repeats 'same as it ever was' over and over again.

 

[Plasmaball]

And just how do you know it's "not his land"? Are you at all aware of the Homestead Acts? Or the Preemption Act of 1841? How else would his family have been there for the past 140 years?

And it has plenty to do with what's going on now. You have the rights of a rancher being usurped by an animal.

Even he isn't claiming he owns the land, or that his family ever has.

And the tortoise is entirely irrelevant because it has nothing to do with why his cattle are being evicted.

Then why is there a conservation area designated in the Gold Butte area for a land tortoise? Hmm? I just showed you the link. Anyhow:



BLM seizes cattle in range war with stubborn Nevada rancher - latimes.com

"Wake up America. Look what our ancestors fought for and we need to stand up for that. We need to realize what's happening. They are taking everything away from us. This isn't only about one family. This is about everyone's family."

–Bailey Bundy Logue

“My ancestors created the rights to that land one hundred and some odd years ago,” Bundy’s daughter Bailey Logue told The Los Angeles Times. “And we’re not giving them up.”

Feds Force Family Off 120-Year-Old Ranch To Protect Tortoise | Off The Grid News

Read more at 'Wake up America,' says family involved in BLM cattle dispute | KSL.com

because the animal is protected...WTF does this have to do with anything? Had he paid the yearly fee this would never have been an issue. By his own stupid mouth he is asking for trouble. He ignores all federal laws. Well sure worked out for him didnt it?

Ive never seen the right be more stupid than on this issue.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think running a commercial cattle operation on public lands, while refusing to pay the grazing fees and ignoring a federal judge's order to remove the cattle is trespassing.

Perhaps you haven't read the 5th Amendment then? That's his land. It has been for 140 years. He has rights under imminent domain law. The government cannot just up and seize land from someone without just compensation. His family was there long before the BLM was ever established. The land was probably granted to his ancestors under the now defunct homestead acts of the early 1800's and the Preemption Act of 1841. The BLM itself wasn't formed until 1946.

The land isn't his....he even acknowledges it isn't his. You're just getting silly now.

Actually he and others on the right have gone past silly and are now just pathetic.

Leave it to conservatives to not let the facts get in the way of yet another phony, contrived ‘controversy.’

 

[Dot Com]

The main way I have seen that it is not, and never has been, their land is that the rancher himself says it is public land.

Oh, and if they owned the land (or had any claim to it), he would not have paid the grazing fees from the begining.

And also, if the family owned the 600,000 acres in question, they have never paid any taxes on them. The back-taxes are going to be a pretty penny, dontcha think?

Why not organize a HUGE gofundme fundraiser.

Have all the Constitutional secessionists chip in, buy out the land, and set up their own city.
They can fight off big government together, in between hosting Constitutional conventions.

Or, what about people who want amnesty for 12 million illegal or undocumented immigrants: they can buy up land and create a tribal reservation.
Environmentalists can create jobs preserving and breeding endangered turtles, prairie chickens, or even run no-kill shelters out there.

Why not get creative here?

is that what your boyfriend told you to type. And you prolly wonder why no one, NO ONE, replies to your zany rw posts. I only replied as a lifeline to keep you from sinking into your rw abyss.

As to the OP, the land that this guy may own, not the public land he's been illegally grazing his cattle on, needs to have a lean put on it until he gets right w/ the feds on the fees he hasn't paid for years.

 

[Mustang]

Your finding the idea humorous doesn't change the fact that a great many Americans are worried that the federal gov. wants to establish a tyranny. Adding support to that idea is indeed idiotic.

You think the public is trespassing on public land?

I think running a commercial cattle operation on public lands, while refusing to pay the grazing fees and ignoring a federal judge's order to remove the cattle is trespassing.

Perhaps you haven't read the 5th Amendment then? That's his land. It has been for 140 years. He has rights under imminent domain law. The government cannot just up and seize land from someone without just compensation. His family was there long before the BLM was ever established. The land was probably granted to his ancestors under the now defunct homestead acts of the early 1800's and the Preemption Act of 1841. The BLM itself wasn't formed until 1946.

This is where I feel compelled to mention that one of the things I've grown to absolutely hate in the last few years is when someone with very little knowledge on a particular subject starts to talk about it as if they're an expert. That's especially true when they go on to make complete fools of themselves in the process. But for some reason I can't fathom, it never seems to bother conservatives when they do that. They just plow forward anyway.

To start with, it's NOT imminent domain as if it's about to happen at any moment; it's eminent domain.

The simple fact is that Bundy doesn't own the land, and he's not entitled to graze his cattle for free on public land which is the property of the citizens of the United States. He damn well should understand that, and any competent lawyer would tell him so if he bothered to ask.

Here's the way it works:

Because it's classified as public land, as the representative of the citizens of this country, the Federal Gov't is tasked with managing the land and paying for it's upkeep with taxpayer dollars. As long as the land is fit for usage (because there's no drought or any other problem that might cause it to be out of use) the Federal Gov't will make it available for usage by ranchers, and is obligated to provide usage to ALL ranchers without prejudice and/or favoritism as long as they all pay the exact same rate fee as everyone else which either ends up going into the treasury or is then used to help defray the cost of managing the land. That means that unless Bundy has some type of specific contractural agreement with the Federal gov't that states otherwise, he has no more right to graze his cattle on that land for free than any other rancher who would all be required to pay whatever the established grazing fees are which would also have previously been published and would be public knowledge. Those fees would also probably (if not almost certainly) be lower than whatever rate the ranchers would have to pay to graze their cattle on private land.

You guys spend half of your time whining about how the taxpayers are always getting the shaft in this country. What the hell do you think men like Bundy are doing? He wants some kind of special right to graze his cattle for free which his fellow ranchers don't get. For one thing, in a capitalist sense, that would give him an unfair competitive advantage over his neighbors since he would be able to fatten his cattle for market at no cost while everyone else would have to pay to graze their cattle. Additionally, Bundy is essentially cheating the taxpayers of the US out of revenue which is due the US Treasury from land use in much the same way that oil companies and lumber companies have to pay a fee for mining and/or logging on public lands?

If you don't know the issues, you ought to stay out of the debate, PERIOD!

 

[nodoginnafight]

The talking points have been blown out of the water repeatedly: killing his cows, throwing him off his land for turtles, homestead idiocy... they don't care. Their masters gave them their talking points and ordered them to spread 'em. They dutifully obey no matter how stupid they appear. I guess you gotta admire their willingness to be such fools for the sake of their masters. There's a lot to be said for a good lapdog.

 

[Duped]

I'd like to see the feds go after those who are illegally grazing on food stamps The zeal they are exhibiting here is ludicrous; contrasted with the malfeasance replete in this administration.