Conservative Action Alerts and Nevada Rancher

[OnePercenter]

OnePercenter Bundy needs to pay his bills.

 

[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.

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!

Notice how your whole post is full of assertions. No facts. No new revelations. Nothing. Insulting me will not prove any of your points. Moreover, it isn't your right to tell me to stay out of anything. You having to correct my grammar means you really have nothing to add.

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.

Classified by the government. Ever since the 1970's the government has been trying to run these ranchers out of Nevada. Moreover, Bundy has preemptive rights. He does. His ancestors most likely got that land via the homestead acts of the early 1800's. Meaning you can't kick a family whose been living on there for 140 years off their land. It's funny how you call this government our "representative" by the way. In what way are they representing us exactly? Is this what you call representation? Tasering Bundy's son? First Amendment areas?

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

If Bundy produces the deed of ownership to that land, none of that matters.

That means that unless Bundy has some type of specific contractual 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.

And the last 140 years didn't count because? What you don't seem to understand is that according to the BLM, this land is being reserved for the benefit of the public and for the preservation of a desert tortoise, which ironically is overpopulating the area. And just how is it benefiting the public? The Bureau of Land Management isn't doing it's job to boot. They used faulty reasoning to come and confiscate his cattle to begin with.

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.

Spouting minutia isn't an argument. There are bigger issues than just the fees here. But just so you know, Bundy's been paying the fees to Clark County.

"I love you people, and I love this land, and I love freedom and liberty, and I love the sovereign state of Nevada and nobody can tell me the United States owns this land,” said Bundy, adding that he would pay any grazing fees to Clark County and not the federal government."

-Cliven Bundy

Moreover, the original tenants were probably squatters who settled on the land before it could be surveyed. Initially, Congress passed the Preemption Act of 1841, which granted squatters the right to settle the land, caving to demands from Western representatives. It was repealed in 1891 due to rampant abuse by speculators. However The Homestead Act of 1862 was passed and it transferred 160 acres of unoccupied land these squatters and homesteaders there, and after 5 years of residency they could pay $1.25 per acre to acquire it before the land was sold to the public. It wasn't just 8 years later that Bundy's ancestors started tending and grazing cattle. So deductively speaking, this original tenants most likely got this land from the government fair and square.

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.

Really? And what Democrat hasn't demanded special rights from their government? Hmm? Also, he's the only rancher there, so there are no ranchers in Clark County to be unfair to. Keep up. He's the last active rancher in Clark County. Your argument is therefore bunk.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The strangest part about this is that if this were some inner-city mom, they would have posted an action alert crying about how long she's been laping up the freebies. But this welfare cowboy with 14 kids should just be given the public lands ???

I swear - you can"t make this crap up.

 

[farmer]

Bundy is not going to show a deed for that land beacuse even he admits it is public land.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

TK, I get the impression that you think that the Bundys live and have their ranch on the land in question.

That's not the case.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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!

Notice how your whole post is full of assertions. No facts. No new revelations. Nothing. Insulting me will not prove any of your points. Moreover, it isn't your right to tell me to stay out of anything.



Classified by the government. Ever since the 1970's the government has been trying to run these ranchers out of Nevada. Moreover, Bundy has preemptive rights. He does. His ancestors most likely got that land via the homestead acts of the early 1800's. Meaning you can't kick a family whose been living on there for 140 years off their land. It's funny how you call this government our "representative" by the way. In what way are they representing us exactly? Is this what you call representation? Tasering Bundy's son? First Amendment areas?



If Bundy produces the deed of ownership to that land, none of that matters.



And the last 140 years didn't count because? What you don't seem to understand is that according to the BLM, this land is being reserved for the benefit of the public and for the preservation of a desert tortoise, which ironically is overpopulating the area. And just how is it benefiting the public? The Bureau of Land Management isn't doing it's job to boot. They used faulty reasoning to come and confiscate his cattle to begin with.

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.

Spouting minutia isn't an argument. There are bigger issues than just the fees here. But just so you know, Bundy's been paying the fees to Clark County.

"I love you people, and I love this land, and I love freedom and liberty, and I love the sovereign state of Nevada and nobody can tell me the United States owns this land,” said Bundy, adding that he would pay any grazing fees to Clark County and not the federal government."

-Cliven Bundy

Moreover, the original tenants were probably squatters who settled on the land before it could be surveyed. Initially, Congress passed the Preemption Act of 1841, which granted squatters the right to settle the land, caving to demands from Western representatives, it was repealed in 1891 due to rampant abuse by speculators. However The Homestead Act of 1862 was passed and it transferred 160 acres of unoccupied land these squatters and homesteaders there, and after 5 years of residency they could pay $1.25 per acre to acquire it before the land was sold to the public. It wasn't just 8 years later that Bundy's ancestors started tending and grazing cattle. So deductively speaking, this original tenants most likely got this land from the government fair and square.

You're working with a number of incorrect assumptions, which I realize is not entirely your fault. You didn't make up the bullshit, you just believed it.

The land in question is not part of the Bundys ranch. They don't live on it, and they never have. Just like all other BLM land in Nevada, it's barren scrubland. You can't "homestead" land that you don't have a "homestead" on.

The federal government has not been trying to get any ranchers off the land, either. It's been federally-owned land since it was Mexico, and the federal government has been happy to let ranchers graze their cows on that land for hundreds of years - and since the creation of BLM, asking only a small grazing fee.

If the Bundys had followed the law, and paid the grazing fee for the last 20 years, there'd be no issue at all. None of this would have happened.

(as a side note, he's said that he would be willing to pay Clark County - not that he actually has)

 

[TemplarKormac]

TK, I get the impression that you think that the Bundys live and have their ranch on the land in question.

That's not the case.

I haven't read anything suggesting otherwise. He says his family has ranched there since the 1870's. So, how can they simply ranch there without living there or owning the land for that long?

 

[nodoginnafight]

TK, I get the impression that you think that the Bundys live and have their ranch on the land in question.

That's not the case.

I haven't read anything suggesting otherwise. He says his family has ranched there since the 1870's. So, how can they simply ranch there without living there or owning the land for that long?

All of this has been explained here and in virtually every media report. If you really don't understand by now, I can only assume willful ignorance. How can YOU post such lengthy diatribes on a subject you admitedly know absolutely nothing about?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And Doc, I thank you for your patience.

First where does the man live? Away from his cattle? I seriously doubt that. I admittedly don't know where he lives. But I'm looking for hard facts here. I've not gotten any. Not from the government, not from the Bundy's and not from the media. But his claim of having ranched there for generations merits some looking into. He is a descendant of the Mormons who settled there in 140 years ago.

He has been allotted 158,666 acres (247 sq mi) of rangeland in Bunkerville Nevada. So, I can only assume he's been living there this entire time.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

TK, I get the impression that you think that the Bundys live and have their ranch on the land in question.

That's not the case.

I haven't read anything suggesting otherwise. He says his family has ranched there since the 1870's. So, how can they simply ranch there without living there or owning the land for that long?

They do own a ranch in Clark County, and do live there.

They don't own the land they graze their cattle on, and never have. That land - where they graze their 900 heads of cattle - is public land. It is not part of their ranch, although I imagine it isn't far away.

 

[TemplarKormac]

TK, I get the impression that you think that the Bundys live and have their ranch on the land in question.

That's not the case.

I haven't read anything suggesting otherwise. He says his family has ranched there since the 1870's. So, how can they simply ranch there without living there or owning the land for that long?

All of this has been explained here and in virtually every media report. If you really don't understand by now, I can only assume willful ignorance. How can YOU post such lengthy diatribes on a subject you admittedly know absolutely nothing about?

I've been reading all of the media reports. I haven't admitted anything up to this post of yours. They don't suggest he lives there, but they also don't suggest that he doesn't live there. If you can provide me with a report that shows me whether or not he lives there, then I will drop the issue.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Templar: The facts are within easy reach. You choose to remain oblivious, that is your choice. Just know expect anyone to take your posts seriously since you aren't even serious enough to read one article.

 

[bodecea]

And Doc, I thank you for your patience.

First where does the man live? Away from his cattle? I seriously doubt that. I admittedly don't know where he lives. But I'm looking for hard facts here. I've not gotten any. Not from the government, not from the Bundy's and not from the media. But his claim of having ranched there for generations merits some looking into. He is a descendant of the Mormons who settled there in 140 years ago.

He has been allotted 158,666 acres (247 sq mi) of rangeland in Bunkerville Nevada. So, I can only assume he's been living there this entire time.

Yes...in the west with open range like that, that's exactly how it's done. Why do you think they brand? To keep track the one or two times a year they gather them up.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I haven't read anything suggesting otherwise. He says his family has ranched there since the 1870's. So, how can they simply ranch there without living there or owning the land for that long?

All of this has been explained here and in virtually every media report. If you really don't understand by now, I can only assume willful ignorance. How can YOU post such lengthy diatribes on a subject you admittedly know absolutely nothing about?

I've been reading all of the media reports. I haven't admitted anything up to this post of yours. They don't suggest he lives there, but they also don't suggest that he doesn't live there. If you can provide me with a report that shows me whether or not he lives there, then I will drop the issue.

I don't care if you drop it or not, if you're content to post nonsense, why should I care?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I haven't read anything suggesting otherwise. He says his family has ranched there since the 1870's. So, how can they simply ranch there without living there or owning the land for that long?

All of this has been explained here and in virtually every media report. If you really don't understand by now, I can only assume willful ignorance. How can YOU post such lengthy diatribes on a subject you admittedly know absolutely nothing about?

I've been reading all of the media reports. I haven't admitted anything up to this post of yours. They don't suggest he lives there, but they also don't suggest that he doesn't live there. If you can provide me with a report that shows me whether or not he lives there, then I will drop the issue.

If he lived there, and was being kicked out of his home, don't you think any of the articles you've read would have mentioned that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

TK, I get the impression that you think that the Bundys live and have their ranch on the land in question.

That's not the case.

I haven't read anything suggesting otherwise. He says his family has ranched there since the 1870's. So, how can they simply ranch there without living there or owning the land for that long?

They do own a ranch in Clark County, and do live there.

They don't own the land they graze their cattle on, and never have. That land - where they graze their 900 heads of cattle - is public land. It is not part of their ranch, although I imagine it isn't far away.

I've been reading report after report. I frankly don't know who or what to believe. My research fails me at the moment.

 

[TemplarKormac]

All of this has been explained here and in virtually every media report. If you really don't understand by now, I can only assume willful ignorance. How can YOU post such lengthy diatribes on a subject you admittedly know absolutely nothing about?

I've been reading all of the media reports. I haven't admitted anything up to this post of yours. They don't suggest he lives there, but they also don't suggest that he doesn't live there. If you can provide me with a report that shows me whether or not he lives there, then I will drop the issue.

I don't care if you drop it or not, if you're content to post nonsense, why should I care?

Then why are you trolling? Begone.

 

[Dot Com]

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.

its obvious that they've been spoon-fed their marching orders for today.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Templar: The facts are within easy reach. You choose to remain oblivious, that is your choice. Just know expect anyone to take your posts seriously since you aren't even serious enough to read one article.

Oh really now. I think I am one of the more effective debaters here, compared to you. If your arguments are as bad as your grammatical mistakes, you're in a lot of trouble.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I find it very hard to believe that anyone could read a single article about this and still be so woefully uninformed about the most rudimentary issues involved.