My revised position on the Bundy Ranch crisis

[TemplarKormac]

Okay. I never said I was perfect, but even I know when to change my views to reality. I promised myself I would never be so stubborn as to be blinded to the facts. Mr. Bundy did break the law. He lost two court cases which mandated he pack up and leave. In 1993, the Federal Government chose to designate the Bunkerville Range area as a habitat for an endangered species of desert tortoise. They told him that he could not have more than 150 head of cattle on that land at any point in time. Yet he chose to continue letting all 1000 of his cows graze on the land. According to the government, he now owes $1.1 million in back grazing fees.

Let's also get another thing straight here. He doesn't own the land. He owned (past tense) the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment. Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the government can revoke grazing rights for a set of reasons, including but not limited to circumstances which deplete the grazing area. He claims "preemptive rights" over the land in question, but as I see it, I tend to disagree. Being a Native American, I am inclined to believe that the Native American tribes who lived in that area for well over 3,000 years have a "preeminent right" to that land, not Mr. Bundy, or the Federal Government; but I digress.

In 1998, Clark County purchased the grazing rights to this 250 square mile swath of land and chose to retire them once again for the sake of a desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy contends that only the State of Nevada can solve this issue since it does indeed own the grazing rights. He would be correct. But he also did make threatening statements to government officials. That still doesn't change the fact he broke the law. That also does not excuse the government from its behavior either.

I cannot ignore how the government is handling this issue. They have assaulted protesters and set up "free speech" zones for these protesters. They proceeded to taser Bundy's son in the fracas. My support for Mr. Bundy doesn't hinge on his misconduct, but on how he is being treated by the government. He could have simply up and left, but he didn't. The government could have simply conducted this operation peacefully, not in a heavy handed manner, and without inflaming the surrounding populous plus ultimately Americans across the country. I think both the Federal Government and more ultimately the State of Nevada hold the fate of this entire conflict in their hands.

I am also inclined to believe that if further, more intense violence ensues i.e. gun violence, this could be the exact excuse that Democrats and our President would use to pass some sort of gun control legislation in Congress. Militias are falling for the bait, and any way you slice it, this won't be good for anyone.

That is all. Discuss this as you please.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Okay. I never said I was perfect, but even I know when to change my views to reality. I promised myself I would never be so stubborn as to be blinded to the facts. Mr. Bundy did break the law. He lost two court cases which mandated he pack up and leave. In 1993, the Federal Government chose to designate the Bunkerville Range area as a habitat for an endangered species of desert tortoise. They told him that he could not have more than 150 head of cattle on that land at any point in time. Yet he chose to continue letting all 1000 of his cows graze on the land. According to the government, he now owes $1.1 million in back grazing fees.

Let's also get another thing straight here. He doesn't own the land. He owned (past tense) the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment. Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the government can revoke grazing rights for a set of reasons, including but not limited to circumstances which deplete the grazing area. He claims "preemptive rights" over the land in question, but as I see it, I tend to disagree. Being a Native American, I am inclined to believe that the Native American tribes who lived in that area for well over 3,000 years have a "preeminent right" to that land, not Mr. Bundy, or the Federal Government; but I digress.

In 1998, Clark County purchased the grazing rights to this 250 square mile swath of land and chose to retire them once again for the sake of a desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy contends that only the State of Nevada can solve this issue since it does indeed own the grazing rights. He would be correct. But he also did make threatening statements to government officials. That still doesn't change the fact he broke the law. That also does not excuse the government from its behavior either.

I cannot ignore how the government is handling this issue. They have assaulted protesters and set up "free speech" zones for these protesters. They proceeded to taser Bundy's son in the fracas. My support for Mr. Bundy doesn't hinge on his misconduct, but on how he is being treated by the government. He could have simply up and left, but he didn't. The government could have simply conducted this operation peacefully, not in a heavy handed manner, and without inflaming the surrounding populous plus ultimately Americans across the country. I think Nevada holds the fate of this whole conflict in their hands.

I am also inclined to believe that if further more intense violence ensues i.e. gun violence, this could be the exact excuse that Democrats and our President would use to pass some sort of gun control legislation in Congress. Militias are falling for the bait, and any way you slice it, this won't be good for anyone.

That is all. Discuss this as you please.

the heritage of his family ranch dates back to the homestead act by Abe Lincoln

 

[TemplarKormac]

Okay. I never said I was perfect, but even I know when to change my views to reality. I promised myself I would never be so stubborn as to be blinded to the facts. Mr. Bundy did break the law. He lost two court cases which mandated he pack up and leave. In 1993, the Federal Government chose to designate the Bunkerville Range area as a habitat for an endangered species of desert tortoise. They told him that he could not have more than 150 head of cattle on that land at any point in time. Yet he chose to continue letting all 1000 of his cows graze on the land. According to the government, he now owes $1.1 million in back grazing fees.

Let's also get another thing straight here. He doesn't own the land. He owned (past tense) the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment. Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the government can revoke grazing rights for a set of reasons, including but not limited to circumstances which deplete the grazing area. He claims "preemptive rights" over the land in question, but as I see it, I tend to disagree. Being a Native American, I am inclined to believe that the Native American tribes who lived in that area for well over 3,000 years have a "preeminent right" to that land, not Mr. Bundy, or the Federal Government; but I digress.

In 1998, Clark County purchased the grazing rights to this 250 square mile swath of land and chose to retire them once again for the sake of a desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy contends that only the State of Nevada can solve this issue since it does indeed own the grazing rights. He would be correct. But he also did make threatening statements to government officials. That still doesn't change the fact he broke the law. That also does not excuse the government from its behavior either.

I cannot ignore how the government is handling this issue. They have assaulted protesters and set up "free speech" zones for these protesters. They proceeded to taser Bundy's son in the fracas. My support for Mr. Bundy doesn't hinge on his misconduct, but on how he is being treated by the government. He could have simply up and left, but he didn't. The government could have simply conducted this operation peacefully, not in a heavy handed manner, and without inflaming the surrounding populous plus ultimately Americans across the country. I think Nevada holds the fate of this whole conflict in their hands.

I am also inclined to believe that if further more intense violence ensues i.e. gun violence, this could be the exact excuse that Democrats and our President would use to pass some sort of gun control legislation in Congress. Militias are falling for the bait, and any way you slice it, this won't be good for anyone.

That is all. Discuss this as you please.

the heritage of his family ranch dates back to the homestead act by Abe Lincoln

The heritage of the Indian tribes who lived in that area dates back to long before Abe Lincoln and the Homestead Act of 1862 were ever even thought of.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I commend you on being willing to accept when you've been running down the wrong path.

The one thing that I'll say is that to a large extent, the heavy-handedness of the government's response is due to Bundy's bluster and calls for militia to come from all over the country and help him make a stand.

He's the one baiting the militias, not the Fed.

Other than that, I think you've got the whole story now. While an argument could be made that morally he's in the right, there's really no question that legally and ethically he's completely wrong.

 

[strollingbones]

amazing when people pay attention to facts and dont just jump on the partisan bandwagon what they might discover...

if this were a landlord tossing out a family with 5 kids....conservatives would be all about the landlords rights...here the landlord is the government....dont you expect the government to be paid....just like you would the landlord in the private sector? why does that change depending on conservative whim .....to which there is no reason

 

[jon_berzerk]

Okay. I never said I was perfect, but even I know when to change my views to reality. I promised myself I would never be so stubborn as to be blinded to the facts. Mr. Bundy did break the law. He lost two court cases which mandated he pack up and leave. In 1993, the Federal Government chose to designate the Bunkerville Range area as a habitat for an endangered species of desert tortoise. They told him that he could not have more than 150 head of cattle on that land at any point in time. Yet he chose to continue letting all 1000 of his cows graze on the land. According to the government, he now owes $1.1 million in back grazing fees.

Let's also get another thing straight here. He doesn't own the land. He owned (past tense) the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment. Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the government can revoke grazing rights for a set of reasons, including but not limited to circumstances which deplete the grazing area. He claims "preemptive rights" over the land in question, but as I see it, I tend to disagree. Being a Native American, I am inclined to believe that the Native American tribes who lived in that area for well over 3,000 years have a "preeminent right" to that land, not Mr. Bundy, or the Federal Government; but I digress.

In 1998, Clark County purchased the grazing rights to this 250 square mile swath of land and chose to retire them once again for the sake of a desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy contends that only the State of Nevada can solve this issue since it does indeed own the grazing rights. He would be correct. But he also did make threatening statements to government officials. That still doesn't change the fact he broke the law. That also does not excuse the government from its behavior either.

I cannot ignore how the government is handling this issue. They have assaulted protesters and set up "free speech" zones for these protesters. They proceeded to taser Bundy's son in the fracas. My support for Mr. Bundy doesn't hinge on his misconduct, but on how he is being treated by the government. He could have simply up and left, but he didn't. The government could have simply conducted this operation peacefully, not in a heavy handed manner, and without inflaming the surrounding populous plus ultimately Americans across the country. I think Nevada holds the fate of this whole conflict in their hands.

I am also inclined to believe that if further more intense violence ensues i.e. gun violence, this could be the exact excuse that Democrats and our President would use to pass some sort of gun control legislation in Congress. Militias are falling for the bait, and any way you slice it, this won't be good for anyone.

That is all. Discuss this as you please.

the heritage of his family ranch dates back to the homestead act by Abe Lincoln

The heritage of the Indian tribes who lived in that area dates back to long before Abe Lincoln and the Homestead Act of 1862 were ever even thought of.

the native Americans are another group of people

promised lands then taken away by the government

 

[strollingbones]

how can one make the fuss that he is 'morally right' ...go on i will be waiting....

 

[strollingbones]

the heritage of his family ranch dates back to the homestead act by Abe Lincoln

The heritage of the Indian tribes who lived in that area dates back to long before Abe Lincoln and the Homestead Act of 1862 were ever even thought of.

the native Americans are another group of people

promised lands then taken away by the government

so you are just for restoration of the white boys rights...got it

he has no 'right' to this land....he was a paying tenant

 

[theDoctorisIn]

how can one make the fuss that he is 'morally right' ...go on i will be waiting....

Morals are personal. Everyone has their own. I don't think that he's morally right, but I can imagine that others do.

Ethics, on the other hand, is societal. And society's rules say he's clearly in the wrong.

 

[TemplarKormac]

the heritage of his family ranch dates back to the homestead act by Abe Lincoln

The heritage of the Indian tribes who lived in that area dates back to long before Abe Lincoln and the Homestead Act of 1862 were ever even thought of.

the native Americans are another group of people

promised lands then taken away by the government

Excuse me? No we are not just "another group of people." We are (or more rather our ancestors) are the original settlers of this country. Any and all settlement by the white men (no racism intended) happened at our expense. The Trail of Tears for example. This is why you see so many of my people in reservations these days, all for that. Anyone who claims preeminent rights to any land who isn't of Native American descent would in fact be incorrect. They have taken it from my people.

But then again, given that history is history for a reason, my views on this land ownership thing is rather moot, even if I do feel strongly about it. I can't go kicking people out of their homes, now can I?

 

[jon_berzerk]

The heritage of the Indian tribes who lived in that area dates back to long before Abe Lincoln and the Homestead Act of 1862 were ever even thought of.

the native Americans are another group of people

promised lands then taken away by the government

Excuse me? No we are not just "another group of people." We are (or more rather our ancestors) are the original settlers of this country. Any and all settlement by the white men (no racism intended) happened at our expense. The Trail of Tears for example. This is why you see so many of my people in reservations these days, all for that. Anyone who claims preeminent rights to any land who isn't of Native American descent would in fact be incorrect. They have taken it from my people.

But then again, given that history is history for a reason, my views on land ownership thing is rather moot, even if I do feel strongly about it. I can't go kicking people out of their homes, now can I?

all by this government

this issue is bigger then bundy

 

[jon_berzerk]

The heritage of the Indian tribes who lived in that area dates back to long before Abe Lincoln and the Homestead Act of 1862 were ever even thought of.

the native Americans are another group of people

promised lands then taken away by the government

so you are just for restoration of the white boys rights...got it

he has no 'right' to this land....he was a paying tenant

has nothing to do with white boys rights

the Native Americans do not own the land their reservations sit on

the federal government does

what they are doing to bundy they can do to the Native Americans again

 

[strollingbones]

unfortunately not all wrongs can be righted...you must deal with what is going on today and today the government owns that land

 

[strollingbones]

bia is simply trying to finish what was started how many centuries ago? eradication of the native population

aim does not help the matter being more concerned with sports teams name than the real issues facing natives

 

[strollingbones]

one cannot help but wonder what tribal role simple is listed on? if any.....

 

[LoneLaugher]

Okay. I never said I was perfect, but even I know when to change my views to reality. I promised myself I would never be so stubborn as to be blinded to the facts. Mr. Bundy did break the law. He lost two court cases which mandated he pack up and leave. In 1993, the Federal Government chose to designate the Bunkerville Range area as a habitat for an endangered species of desert tortoise. They told him that he could not have more than 150 head of cattle on that land at any point in time. Yet he chose to continue letting all 1000 of his cows graze on the land. According to the government, he now owes $1.1 million in back grazing fees.

Let's also get another thing straight here. He doesn't own the land. He owned (past tense) the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment. Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the government can revoke grazing rights for a set of reasons, including but not limited to circumstances which deplete the grazing area. He claims "preemptive rights" over the land in question, but as I see it, I tend to disagree. Being a Native American, I am inclined to believe that the Native American tribes who lived in that area for well over 3,000 years have a "preeminent right" to that land, not Mr. Bundy, or the Federal Government; but I digress.

In 1998, Clark County purchased the grazing rights to this 250 square mile swath of land and chose to retire them once again for the sake of a desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy contends that only the State of Nevada can solve this issue since it does indeed own the grazing rights. He would be correct. But he also did make threatening statements to government officials. That still doesn't change the fact he broke the law. That also does not excuse the government from its behavior either.

I cannot ignore how the government is handling this issue. They have assaulted protesters and set up "free speech" zones for these protesters. They proceeded to taser Bundy's son in the fracas. My support for Mr. Bundy doesn't hinge on his misconduct, but on how he is being treated by the government. He could have simply up and left, but he didn't. The government could have simply conducted this operation peacefully, not in a heavy handed manner, and without inflaming the surrounding populous plus ultimately Americans across the country. I think both the Federal Government and more ultimately the State of Nevada hold the fate of this entire conflict in their hands.

I am also inclined to believe that if further, more intense violence ensues i.e. gun violence, this could be the exact excuse that Democrats and our President would use to pass some sort of gun control legislation in Congress. Militias are falling for the bait, and any way you slice it, this won't be good for anyone.

That is all. Discuss this as you please.

I am sure that in grade school, your composition teacher told you that you ought to conclude your essays with a statement that emphasizes the point that you wish to make.

Given that, you just submitted a load off shit disguised as a contrite admission of error.

One......the Democrats and our Preident ( nice of you to admit that ) could not pass "some sort" of gun control legislation even if they had the political will to do so........which they most certainly do not. You must know this.

Two......when an insane nutter calls for assistance from "militias" regarding a legal issue such as this......he needs to be taken seriously. The inflammation is not caused by "the government".

Three....the federal government and the state of Nevada do, in fact have the fate of this "conflict" in their hands. If it ends without a shot being fired......or otherwise. If the former, will you praise them for their handling if it?

Finally.....look again at your opening statement. Your comp teacher should have told you that the opening is equally as important as the close. You want the reader to know that you have never claimed to be perfect....but EVEN YOU know when to "change your views to reality".

How interesting. Even you? Meaning.....even someone as near perfect as you? I wonder why you ever find yourself outside the bounds if reality to begin with? Doing the research before taking a stance might help you to do that with less frequency. Reality is in the facts. The facts of this case have never changed. What changed, for you, is that you finally took the time to get them.

Decidedly imperfect.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's time to play cowboys and communists! OK, just kidding. I don't like the way the feds are handling it. The two tiny free speech areas with the requirement that only 25 at a time can hole up in there to voice objections and only one area at a time can be used is way over the top and a power freak move. I don't agree with the rancher but the federal muscle flexing is alarming and unfortunately a trend.

Obama has called on a billion plus to be spent on gun legislation so you'd have to have your head way up your ass to not know it could have an impact. And yes, this could be the power keg they're hoping for and part of the plan. Regardless of who dies.

 

[Kosh]

It is odd that the government has the resources to go after this one man, but yet refuses to uses these same resources to protect the border.

 

[Iceweasel]

It is odd that the government has the resources to go after this one man, but yet refuses to uses these same resources to protect the border.

That's the truth. They rounded up the cows in a hurry but hey, cows can't vote.

 

[Old Rocks]

Okay. I never said I was perfect, but even I know when to change my views to reality. I promised myself I would never be so stubborn as to be blinded to the facts. Mr. Bundy did break the law. He lost two court cases which mandated he pack up and leave. In 1993, the Federal Government chose to designate the Bunkerville Range area as a habitat for an endangered species of desert tortoise. They told him that he could not have more than 150 head of cattle on that land at any point in time. Yet he chose to continue letting all 1000 of his cows graze on the land. According to the government, he now owes $1.1 million in back grazing fees.

Let's also get another thing straight here. He doesn't own the land. He owned (past tense) the grazing rights to the Bunkerville Allotment. Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the government can revoke grazing rights for a set of reasons, including but not limited to circumstances which deplete the grazing area. He claims "preemptive rights" over the land in question, but as I see it, I tend to disagree. Being a Native American, I am inclined to believe that the Native American tribes who lived in that area for well over 3,000 years have a "preeminent right" to that land, not Mr. Bundy, or the Federal Government; but I digress.

In 1998, Clark County purchased the grazing rights to this 250 square mile swath of land and chose to retire them once again for the sake of a desert tortoise. Mr. Bundy contends that only the State of Nevada can solve this issue since it does indeed own the grazing rights. He would be correct. But he also did make threatening statements to government officials. That still doesn't change the fact he broke the law. That also does not excuse the government from its behavior either.

I cannot ignore how the government is handling this issue. They have assaulted protesters and set up "free speech" zones for these protesters. They proceeded to taser Bundy's son in the fracas. My support for Mr. Bundy doesn't hinge on his misconduct, but on how he is being treated by the government. He could have simply up and left, but he didn't. The government could have simply conducted this operation peacefully, not in a heavy handed manner, and without inflaming the surrounding populous plus ultimately Americans across the country. I think both the Federal Government and more ultimately the State of Nevada hold the fate of this entire conflict in their hands.

I am also inclined to believe that if further, more intense violence ensues i.e. gun violence, this could be the exact excuse that Democrats and our President would use to pass some sort of gun control legislation in Congress. Militias are falling for the bait, and any way you slice it, this won't be good for anyone.

That is all. Discuss this as you please.

1000 cows on land that has a carrying capacity of 150? That causes major damage to the land. Damage that takes years to repair.

As far as the time his family has been in the region, that gives him the right to claim only land to which he has clear title. He has no rights on anyone elses land, whether that land is owned by an individual, corperation, or the government.

Really, the very cheapest way to have taken care of this was to have paid some cowboys to simply shoot every cow that was on the land illegally. That way, no confrontation, and Mr. Bundy would be free to do whatever he chose to do with the dead cows.