Nevada Rancher Takes Federal Government - Is He Right?
The conservatives are going nuts.
The fanatics are screaming, "Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge."
Tea Party and Republican politicians are flocking to get on camera in support of rancher Cliven Bundy.
But, Is this rancher right?
The gist:
A cattle rancher grazes his cattle on public land. His family has been doing so since around 1870.
The rancher was paying grazing rights fees prior to 1993. At which point he began to contest the right of the federal Bureau of Land Management, (BLN), agency's authority over the disputed grazing land - saying that since his family had been grazing on the land since 1870, he had inherent grazing rights that were not subject to BLM control.
He stopped paying his grazing fees around 1993. (he offered to pay the affected Nevada county - but they declined his offer)
BLM took him to court. He lost twice in Federal courts.
Finally after trying to resolve the issue for over 20 years - the BLM has moved in to remove the cattle from the public land.
With scenes of hundreds of BLM and FBI personnel descending on the rancher's property - the cameras are rolling...
Here's a Google search link for the story, you can pick your own poison as to where to read more details:
The Cliven Bundy Grazing Rights Stories
For the record:
I think Bivens is wrong. I also think the BLM has been trying to resolve this for over 20 years - you expect them to keep trying?
From what I can find, Mr. Bundy does not have even the shadow of a legal, (or moral/rightful), leg to stand on.
What say you?
GAYou are not allowed to do that. At least not before appearing dazzled by the logic of my oratory efforts.
Then... you can say, "Oh I see, of course you are right - I agree with you."
GAIf this Bundy thinks he still owns the land, then he should have no problem producing a deed and it would be on file at the courthouse. Obviously he doesn't and thinks a renter can tell the owner what's up. As for these "American Cowboys", they proven themselves retarded beyond a reasonable doubt by running to Bundy's support just because his son got stupid with a fed and got himself tasered. Plus the fact that Bundy was making tons of money off Federal land and not paying the grazing fees imposed by back in the 80's by Reagan. The idiots think of themselves as patriots the same way the Colonials took on the British. Fact check: The Colonials did not bring their wives and kids to any potentially armed conflict and France, or any other country, won't be coming to their rescue.
I believe the Feds are also hiding behind the "Endangered Species Act" for desert tortoise or something like that. They recently denied water the famers to the south need badly and chose to let it run out into the ocean. That was supposedly for a field mouse or something just as ridiculous.
I have really mixed feelings on this subject. First he is wrong for not paying his leasing fees for all these years. Second his family has raised cattle on this land for well over 100 years but that has no relevance I guess.
I for one prefer a good steak over boiled turtle or fried field mouse.
It was encouraging to see the numbers of people who showed up to defend this rancher. I believe this is just the beginning of the protests we will see in the near future. Many of our citizens are getting fed up with the Government actions against we the people.
Good question and it should get some very interesting comments.I was expecting to find another government overreach fiasco when I first checked out this story, and it may turn out to be so when more facts are known, but given the published details so far, it does appear it is the rancher Bundy that is wrong.
As you mentioned, he would have been on much firmer ground if he had either continued paying his/the grazing fees, or at least paid them to an escrow account until things were sorted out.
GAAP In 2013 I believe.
Apparently people were paying 1 million dollars a year for these protection people to kill endangered turtles, themselves.
LAS VEGAS — For decades, the vulnerable desert tortoise has led a sheltered existence.
Developers have taken pains to keep the animal safe. It's been protected from meddlesome hikers by the threat of prison time. And wildlife officials have set the species up on a sprawling conservation reserve outside Las Vegas.
But the pampered desert dweller now faces a threat from the very people who have nurtured it.
Federal funds are running out at the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center and officials plan to close the site and euthanize hundreds of the tortoises they've been caring for since the animals were added to the endangered species list in 1990......
......Biologists went about their work examining tortoises for signs of disease as Averill-Murray walked among the reptile pens. But the scrubby 220-acre refuge area will stop taking new animals in the coming months. Most that arrive in the fall will simply be put down, late-emerging victims of budget problems that came from the same housing bubble that put a neighborhood of McMansions at the edge of the once-remote site.
The Bureau of Land Management has paid for the holding and research facility with fees imposed on developers who disturb tortoise habitat on public land. As the housing boom swept through southern Nevada in the 2000s, the tortoise budget swelled. But when the recession hit, the housing market contracted, and the bureau and its local government partners began struggling to meet the center's $1 million annual budget.
Back at the conservation center, a large refrigerator labeled "carcass freezer" hummed in the desert sun as scientists examined the facility's 1,400 inhabitants to find those hearty enough to release into the wild. Officials expect to euthanize more than half the animals in the coming months in preparation for closure at the end of 2014.
The desert tortoise is a survivor that has toddled around the Southwest for 200 million years. But ecologists say the loss of the conservation center represents a harmful blow in southern Nevada for an animal that has held onto some unfortunate evolutionary quirks that impede its coexistence with strip malls, new homes and solar plants.
.......
The animals were once so abundant that tourists would scoop them up as souvenirs. Many quickly realized the shy grass-eaters don't make ideal pets. (For one thing, they can live for 100 years.) And once the species was classified as threatened on the endangered species list, people rushed to give them back.
Former pets make up the majority of the tortoises at the conservation center, where they spend their days staring down jackrabbits and ducking out of the sun into protective PVC piping tucked into the rocky desert floor. Most of these animals are not suitable for release, either infected with disease or otherwise too feeble to survive.
Averill-Murray looks as world-weary as the animals he studies. He wants to save at least the research function of the center and is looking for alternative funding sources.
"It's not the most desirable model to fund recovery – on the back of tortoise habitat," he said.
I saw the local write up, and just like you can't figure out why he thinks he has a leg to stand on. The real question, to my mind, is why the feds have allowed theft of public properties for the past 20 years without taking action.
Darn good question Wilderness, why wait 20 years to go after him?
It looks like part of the answer to you and Old Poolman may be the legal/court process. It has been through two federal courts, and perhaps a number of appeals processes. Plus, and this is pure conjecture, the BLM recently got a new boss. Maybe he decided to "clear his desk" to make a statement. Hmm...
GAI get that, but 20 years??? It doesn't take 20 years to hit the courts a couple of times!!. Plus, it's hard to believe that for 20 years the courts have remanded it to a higher court, saying he can use the land in the meantime.
The new boss sounds more likely - maybe there IS an honest public servant out there, actually doing what is best for the country.A public servant willing to do his or her job to the best of their ability would be refreshing to say the least. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and what else comes to light while they resolve this issue.
"This issue"? What issue? All I can see is some guy saying "I've been using your land to make a profit for a long time and therefore I can continue to use it for my private purposes". Not much of an "issue", but that's just me. His neighbors apparently feel differently; that he owns the usage rights to that land because he's been using it. Maybe I just don't understand
I live in cattle country, and most of the ranchers around here pay the government for grazing rights on Federal property. In his case, he quit paying the "rent," so he probably should be evicted. It doesn't matter how long you have been renting a house, when you stop paying the rent you need to leave.
Part of the "issue" is, from what I read, the Feds control 82% of all the land in Nevada. I believe it is somewhere around 75% here in Arizona. The rancher said he offered to pay the State for grazing rights, but refuses to pay the Feds because they shouldn't own the property.
I think it boils down to a States Rights issue and has little to do with grazing rights for cattle.I'd have to disagree with the States Rights issue. This yahoo is trying to make it into that, by refusing to pay the feds for use of federal land, but it doesn't fly. At the bottom is that he won't pay the rent, and offering to pay it to someone that he doesn't owe doesn't change that. He just doesn't want to pay it, that's all, and knew that offering it to the state would result in a refusal to accept it.
Now, I gather that the desert turtle and the BLM are involved. I'm assuming that he is overgrazing the area, killing the vegetation the turtle needs (or so the BLM or ESA thinks) and is hoping that if he can somehow convince people that the state owns the land he can up his grazing. Whatever it is, though, it isn't about states rights - it is about a private company making money from public land.I don't know enough about the rights of ranchers leasing grazing rights on public land to form a solid opinion. I know that here in Arizona, these grazing lands are open to the public for hunting, hiking, camping, or whatever else people do. As far as the overgrazing I have no idea who controls this or even monitors the condition of the land.
I would bet some of those protesting have no idea what exactly it is they are protesting.
I would like to see more State Control of the land within their own borders and cut the Feds out of the picture, but there could be negatives with that also.I'm not sure who monitors the land here, either, (lots of ranching and grazing rights) but am sure someone does; there have been reports of squabbles over how many cattle can be put on an acre.
An interesting fight we had a couple of years ago is that the greenies moved in and outbid the ranchers for land they'd been using for many years. And then let it sit idle, not putting anything out to graze; they just wanted the land left alone. Put a bunch of ranchers out of business and caused quite a stink, with the legislature not sure what to do about it in the future. Do we want meat to eat, or would we prefer to allow a small environmental activist group to dictate vegetarianism to everybody? Because without cheap grazing rights, few ranchers will survive.
Well, we DO remember Waco and Ruby Ridge. How can we not? The Feds went in and a bunch of weird, unattractive people ended up dead. Assuming that this rancher is 100% in the wrong, even so, the Feds have choices about how they go about handling him. It really does sound like they lack basic good sense, and may even be trying to provoke violence, just like in the aforementioned cases.
Plus, there is plenty of evidence of corruption in this case. Is it true that prominent politicians are goading the action on in order to personally profit from Chinese companies using this land for a solar energy project?Yes, the feds have a choice on how to handle this guy. They can either let him stay and run his cattle on public lands, taking a profit from land owned by you and I, or they can take the cattle off of it. I know which option I would like to see, and if he shows up with a gun, either shoot him or grab and jail him, his choice.
"Is it true that prominent politicians are goading the action on in order to personally profit from Chinese companies using this land for a solar energy project"
Can't imagine where THAT rumor is coming from, but let's hope not. The Chinese began building a solar panel plant not too far from me and sank a million or so into it, along with running up bills of many more millions. Then backed out, leaving all the American creditors high and dry, including the electric COOP that services my home and now is owed millions which I and the other homeowners must make up.I just saw on the news where the Feds called it off and pulled their people out. There were over 1000 civilians that showed up and many were armed. This could have been a real blood bath if someone had not stopped it. I doubt it is over, but at least for now there will be nobody killed or harmed.
I'm not sure if it was all over this grazing land incident or if many citizens are getting fed up with losing their rights and more control by the government. I guess we just wait and see what happens now.I see that now too. I think it was probably a smart move, but I am not sure it is a good thing for it to look like a win for Bundy - unless there are more facts than I have been able to find so far.
GA*shrug* depends on where it goes from there. Let the crowd disperse and move in with choppers and rifles, maybe. Take out a hundred or so cows and leave the area. Repeat every few days in a different area.
I have to say, though, that it gets pretty sad when people begin supporting, with guns, the very folks stealing from them and the rest of us.
Wellllll.... regarding the Waco, Ruby Ridge, Feds overreacting... maybe.
But consider this; most stories mentioned a couple things that might have a bearing on how much "gun power" the Feds might think they need.
1) The rancher did say he would do whatever he had to to stop the Feds?????
2) There were a lot of "independent" minded supporters trying to also block the Feds action.
3) It wass said there were patriot militia groups among the supporters - the kind that needed to be reminded not to open-carry, and leave their rifles in their vehicles.
Just sayin'
ps. Want to share your corruption facts? And what the hell does "unattractive" people have to do with it?
GAAs for the corruption, no idea if it is true, just an internet meme running viral right now. Supposedly, Harry Reed is pushing the Chinese solar power deal to benefit some family member. It is too believable, given his history of dubious land deals, but right now not confirmed.
As for 'unattractive people', the feds found some people with weird, unattractive philosophies, and proceeded to slaughter them. One has to wonder why, since the official reasons given in no way match the blood spilt or effort spent.
Looks very similar to the current case. The rancher appears to be a weirdo, who owes the feds some money, so they bring in lots of armed men, an obvious threat of extreme violence. Does the crime, grazing cattle on public land, match the level of response? On a different forum I saw someone ask if the Feds have invaded and taken violent possession of Warren Buffet's home. He owes something like 600,000,000 dollars in back taxes, and has been fighting it in court for years. Why does Warren get a pass, and this rancher faces the guns, for peanuts in comparison?"Does the crime, grazing cattle on public land, match the level of response?"
You mean does the crime, grazing cattle on public lands for 20 years, refusing to pay the agreed rent while destroying the an endangered species and continuing to put cattle onto land they don't own and have no right to after being told not to, warrant taking the cows off the land?
I'd say yes, wouldn't you? Or are you referring to the armed people threatening to kill federal agents for protecting our lands?
Warren Buffet has not been show to owe anything, but this rancher has. Or are you saying Buffet is guilty before the trial?You will please note that I never said this rancher was in the right. And he hasn't been grazing for 20 years, but he and his ancestors for well over 100 years. Grazing rights are inheritable, even on public lands. Somehow, that practice has not resulted in extinction of the turtles. The turtles are an obvious pretext by the government. Why they think they need the turtles when they seem to already have an open-and-shut legal case against this guy, I don't know. The feds are not there to protect the land, or the turtles. They are there to run this guy off the land over a twenty year dispute over land ownership, probably in pursuit of private gains by relatives of public figures.
I think the feds are escalating a legal/political battle into a physical one. This is a long-simmering dispute. The feds have a horrible record of land mismanagement in the west, where they directly own well over half the land. We would all be far better off if this land was devolved to state or private ownership.No, grazing "rights" are not inheritable, at least not in my area. They go up for bid each year, and high bidder gets the rights for the year.
Sorry, the feds ARE there to protect the land as well as the turtles. That you don't agree the turtle needs protecting, or think cows are more important, is irrelevant. It is the job of the BLM to do it regardless of your opinion.
I don't think it is the feds escalating anything; THEY didn't bring in thousands of people without a stake in the squabble. And no, we certainly would not be better off if the land was all sold off to private ownership; all that would accomplish is usage without regard to sustainability and the inability of the public to enjoy the beauty of nature, what little is left of it. Most has been destroyed by private ownership already.
I'm thinking that people are getting fed up being threatened by the Government Agencies such as the IRS. They are fed up with increasing taxes, unemployment, representatives that don't represent, and many other things.
Perhaps this is all they needed to set them off even if the rancher was in the wrong. Had it not been this incident, it would have been something else but it was bound to happen.
I fear this is only the beginning.
I did smile when I saw the video of citizens of a town in Oklahoma run off that bunch of nuts from the Westboro Baptist Church. They were at least semi-orderly which is good because there were not enough cops there to stop them.
It is a shame this whole incident had to reach the point it got to before it could be settled in the courts.I'd guess that this hasn't been to court because the rancher hasn't a leg to stand on. No lawyer would take the case.
Lawyers will take a murder case when the accused was caught on film with the gun in his hand. I think it has been to court but keeps getting pushed out.
Lawyers will take a losing case...for a price. I'd guess this rancher is out of money, or soon will be. Not many farmers can lose 900 head of cattle and stay in operation.
I haven't seen anything at all (article in our local paper, too) about it ever going to court. I'd say he would have a real hard time showing that the state has jurisdiction over "his" grazing land, OR that he has an "ancestral right" to graze cattle there.I'm told that he feels this land belongs to the State of Nevada, not the Federal Government. The article said the government controls 82% of the land in Nevada, and that is a little excessive in my opinion.
I believe his battle with the government started over 20 years ago, but don't have the specific dates. I believe he is the last big rancher in the state with any cattle. Most of the cattle ranchers have been forced out of business and beef prices are showing the shortage. At this rate, only millionaires will be eating beef in the near future.That's about what I get, too, except for him being the last big rancher. Hadn't heard that.
But that's the problem of course - claiming the land belongs to Nevada and not the feds. Very obviously false, or Nevada would be collecting fees for federal use of it. Saying such a thing doesn't carry much water, no matter who you are. Doubly so after you've already paid fees for years to the feds (illegally, too!) to graze there.A question about your last sentence. When you say '(illegally too!)' what do you mean? He did have a legal right to graze cattle. He just didn't have a legal right to do it and not pay the normal fees.
This rancher obviously doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, as the whole process of grazing on federal lands has been well established for over a century.If he paid rent to the feds but the state owned it (as he claims) then his payment was illegal. If the Feds owned it (as they, the state and everyone else says) then the payments were right and proper.
That's all - if his claim is true then he NEVER paid grazing fees (just bribes or something). If his claim is false then he HAS paid them, but one has to wonder how he can claim payment of fees to the feds for state owned lands.I believe the whole thing started over 20 years ago when he decided he should not have to pay fees to the Feds for property that should belong to the state of Nevada. I would agree with his thinking, but not agree with his just not paying anyone.
Everyone who refuses to pay a bill eventually must expect to face some sort of action by those they owe.
Right now, there are just not enough real facts available for me to form an opinion.
I thank God above for the brave men with rifles who rescued that man and his family from the fascist federal government agencies. I hope it inspires millions of more men to join militias and purchase AR-15s.
It appears that you don't agree that our nation should be a nation governed by the rule of law. Do you also think the 16,000, (or so), other grazing permit holders are dupes for living by the rules?
It may turn out that some type of government skullduggery did start in the 1993 time frame when an apparently acceptable agreement turned unacceptable. But to this point, no facts to prove it, (only endangered species accusations), have been presented.
Is your passionate position because you have those facts? Want to share them so that your comment doesn't sound like just another anarchist tirade?
GAWe plan to take a trip to Arches National Park this spring; would it be acceptable if I fenced it off and began charging admission? I'd like a little side income from public lands, too...
One thing that interestes me is why does the Federal Government have total control of so much land in various states? Over 80% in Nevada and over 70% in Arizona that I know of. I might try some research and find out just exactly how much land in the US is under control of the Feds.
The large majority of land seems to be federally controlled. A question, though - are we "One nation, indivisible, with..." or a loose conglomerate of individual groups, all trying to make a buck off surrounding peoples that aren't part of the group? That Alaska doesn't need to tax it's people, but can survive off oil revenues being paid by the rest of the country has never seemed right to me. Natural resources do not belong to whoever happens to live near them; they belong to the people of the United States.
I haven't formed an opinion of right or wrong. I don't like seeing the build up of both sides (armed) no matter who is of fault. That alone is scary to consider. Anyway just to add something of interest, hopefully not fuel of any sort, is another of many perspectives.
http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_BLM_l … ranch.html
and
http://www.rgj.com/story/tech/environme … a/7649293/Your link to the Reno Gazette appears to be a credible story concerning the oil lease program in Nevada - including seemingly credible pro and con statements.
But, the Natural News link... My gut response is Wow! What BS! Maybe a companion link from that bastion of real truth - Russia Today, (RT.com) would help.
GA
I hear there is a place where they have a roped off place called a 1st Amendment Area, where they allow you your rights. I just hope no women or children are killed protecting a turtle's grazing rights.
LOL, yep they did that - but changed their mind, lickity-split when it became public. Seems some authorities in cities and urban areas, (think the Occupy movement), can get away with it - but you see what happens when they try it in a more "independently minded" area.
Hmm.. Maybe that tells us something.
GA
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago
0All I can do is shake my head , This guy uses YOUR"s and MY land to continue over-graze his profitizing cattle operation ! At the same time Owing over a million dollars in fees for using said land , --for over twenty years! -And now . It's the governments fault for trying to collect back fees ! Yea --I feal terrible for him ! This is an ongoing problem in the west and its not just the cattlemen - the oil companies, gas companies , the loggers !
Everyone loves to hate the federal government , I get that- , its the popular thing to do ! But in this case , he's wrong and he needs to pay our government fees that he agreed to in the first place ! Facts? Explanations? Maybe...
Came across this forum - Metabunk.org, that casts a little more light on the subject.
According to a former superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for the National Park Service from 1987 to 2000.
*in the linked article below he expands this explanation
So it does appear that an endangered species - and - over-grazing were contributing factors to this problem.
The superintendent did offer an easy to understand explanation of necessity for public lands management rules with this "Town Commons" story:
A related article link to a Las Vegas Sun article, on this topic offers even more details about what prompted the Bundy dispute;
If you folks are interested in details, rather than rants, you should check out those links. You may still disagree with them, but at least you will have information to make the choice.
ps. Wesman Todd Shaw, you probably don't need the information in these links - facts will just get in your way.
pss. I really wanted to be in this rancher's corner, (the Feds have an unenviable history of botched "freedoms" decisions), but this time they appear to be right.
GAWow - that Sun article really lines it out, doesn't it? Pretty plain which side has "right" with them.
And just like the writer, I cannot fathom why this has been allowed to continue for 20 years. It should have been nipped at least 18 years ago.
- Old Poolmanposted 10 years ago0
Your points are well taken. However, it does seem that a very large percentage of the land within states is controlled by the Feds.
Nevada = 73.1%
Utah = 70.2%
Idaho = 60.5%
Oregon = 46.2%
California = 35.4%
Arizona = 32.2%
Wyoming = 29.5%
New Mexico = 29.4%
Montana = 26.5%
Alaska = 25.7%
Washington = 22.7%
This is all land that the states themselves cannot use for tax revenues to support schools, state parks, roads, etc.
I have no problem with Federal Parks being set aside and protected, but these are not parks and are mostly unimproved land. I have no idea how much income the Feds derive from these lands for grazing permits.
Your point is that by using Federal control, we can all benefit from the resources available on those lands rather than only the residents of those states. My question would be how much do we benefit? Where does the money go?If your response was addressed to my comment, you have misunderstood my point.
I agree with you, with the exception of National Parks land, and probably some other issue-specific lands, I think much of the "Fed's" lands should rightly be State's land.
I am just not convinced this is a "State's Rights" issue.
GAGA - My response was actually supposed to show up under Wilderness but ended up where it did.
I truly believe things such as the "Endangered Species Act" have become an all purpose shield for the government that can be used to block most anything they wish to stop. Turtles, minnows, owls, and field mice to name a few, are now much more important than humans and severely depleting the food supply production in this country.
It bothers me that states are forced to lose control and revenue from huge percentages of land within their borders. Perhaps the Feds should be required to lease these lands from the states if they wish to control the land?
Not sure who you think the states would be taxing for the use of that land, except the citizens of other states that wish to enjoy the wilder areas of the country and I would be very much against that. We are a country - no small group "owns" the rights to specific areas of public land. Land (IMHO) is either owned privately by individual citizens or is public, owned by the citizens of the entire country. Stewardship may best be served locally, but not ownership, and that means that all people can partake equally.
I meant that the Federally controlled land can't be developed and added to the tax base for the states. But on second thought, that might be a good thing.
My feelings exactly. I would actually expect states, in their greed, to sell off the land simply to produce more taxes and that is NOT in the best interests of the people of the country.
I know in my heart that is exactly what would happen. States would sell off some of the most beautiful country we have to allow developers to build thousands of little houses.
Like GA, I now have to rearrange my thinking on this and that is hard for an old man to do.I know. Until a few days ago I thought Idaho (my home) should own it's own land, too. Then I think about the statesman caught logging public lands for lumber to build his house (that didn't know it was illegal). And the perpetual cry for more money - always more money - to fund their pet projects. And the current furor over leasing out public owned homes on beautiful waterfront property for $99 per year.
And I think about how long what little beauty is left (that an old man like me can reach) and how much longer it would be before the friends of those same politicians offered to buy it for a "reasonable" price of $5 per acre.
Excellent point, and I think it can be backed-up by considering the intentions of the Framers with regards to preventing large state vs. small state domination in the Union - among others, consider their thinking when assigning Senate representation - every state gets 2.
Damn, now I have to rethink my "State's Rights" to land as I indicated to Old Poolman. Although I think I will hold on to the thought that there can or would be special circumstance instances where state ownership of public land is more appropriate.
Double Damn... I love it when something I think is challenged by something else I read/learn. I am either reassured of a secure opinion, or I am educated by a new line of reasoning. Both are positives in my book.
GAGA, I've kind of moved away from what the Framers were doing. In some respects.
They had to get 13 colonies, all very different culturally and religiously, to agree to become one union. That situation no longer holds, and the US is nearly as homogeneous as a group of different cultures can be. Even the silly yakking in Texas about seceding we never intended to come to anything and didn't.
We are one country now, not 13 politically, religiously and culturally diverse communities. Geographical differences, yes, (and we should retain those differences) but nothing that should be even a talking point towards ending the union. Or allowing one state to abuse the citizens of another, perhaps by charging money to visit/use/appreciate our natural resources.
Ev’n OP. Good to see you. How have you been?
The answer to your question can be found in a patchwork of federal regulations. The most widely applicable is The Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (PILT) that authorizes federal compensation to local governments, mostly counties, for reductions to their property tax bases due to the presence of most federally owned land. In FY2013, the PILT program distributed about $400M for 606.4 million acres, or about 94% of all federal land. {1}
Nationally, about 28 percent of the country is public land. {2}
In FY2013, federal acreage and payments to the first three states on your list were as follows:
State ACRES PAYMENT %AC %PAY
Nevada 56,723,119 23,331,913 9.4 5.8
Utah 32,851,851 35,391,052 5.4 8.9
Idaho 32,597,631 26,326,163 5.4 6.6
{3}
{1} http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31392.pdf
{2} http://www.naco.org/legislation/policie … TPPTv3.pdf
{3} http://www.leg.state.nv.us/division/res … s/pilt.pdfHello Quiligrapher - Nice to see you again and thanks for the education. I had no idea a program like this even existed, but it does make sense after I see the numbers. There appears to be some differences in the amount some states get paid for federal acreage. Any idea why that may be?
“The authorized level of PILT payments is calculated under a complex formula. No precise dollar figure can be given in advance for each year’s PILT authorized level. Five factors affect the calculation of a payment to a given county:
the number of acres eligible for PILT payments,
the county’s population,
payments in prior years from other specified federal land payment programs,
state laws directing payments to a particular government purpose, and
the Consumer Price Index as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. " {1}
Oh, yes, just to keep things complicated, Congress does not always appropriate enough money to meet the legislative formulae.
{1}
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31392.pdfIt sounds like the same people who write our tax laws are involved with this program. Interesting information and I learned something new. Arizona has a large amount of grazing land and I would be trying to see how much we get paid from this program.
If Congress fails to appropriate enough funds does that mean the states just don't get paid that year? Do they get an I.O.U. or a sorry Charlie letter?
He was leasing land and the leaseholder decided to not continue the service. To me the rancher is a bad case of a false sense of entitlement.
The fact that the leasing agency was the government and they want to save a turtle is pretty much beside the point. No one has the right to demand another entity to extend a service to them. If he wants absolute rights over some land, he should buy his own land.Actually, according to the article provided by GA, the leaseholder decided to limit the lease to fewer cattle to protect wild animals living there.
Whereupon He decided to quit paying the fee but keep grazing his cattle, and actually expand the numbers he put onto the land.
In some ways it all reminds me of the Drakes Bay fiasco, where the lease ran out and the Lessee has cried rivers of tears since, suing in multiple courts to try and force the leaseholder to change the plans it is had for decades for the estuary being used to generate private profit.
OMG! UPDATE!
I am not usually a Fox News Basher - but I am always willing to be a Hannity(sp?) basher.
And tonight, (Monday, 4/14), he was at his worst in a segment with rancher Bundy, and the cattle grazing story.
From what I can find, the only detail in question is whether or not the desert tortoise endangered species controversy has any merit - as in government shenanigans. Otherwise, Bundy appears to be in the wrong from square one.
Now, Hannity leads a segment portraying Bundy as an American patriot for standing up to a "foreign" government. - That's what Bundy calls the US government.
He also accepts Bundy's explanation that he stopped paying because he did not like the way the BLM operated as justification for his actions.
And on, and on, and on, point after point Hannity was drooling over the patriotic actions of Bundy!
Geez Louise, I see a new axis of evil - Hannity, Sharpton, and Olberman.
GA
[edit] OMG! again! As I am typing this his segment is continuing with a young man describing his near death experience in which he went to heaven - and Hannity is asking him to describe what heaven is like - and the young man is doing it.
Folks, I am not trashing religious belief or heaven - but come on, A guy goes to heaven and his life-changing experience doesn't clue him in that going on a talk show might not be the most credible thing to do?????
I wonder how Hannity would respond to an Olberman interview with an alien abduction victim?I couldn't imagine what would of happened if one of the armed idiots fired a shot at the feds. Can you say Seal/SWAT snipers and drones and a lot of dead idiots? At least there will be less of them in the world. As mentioned earlier, I can't imagine why the feds took so long to respond to that clown. They have all the options and if they show weakness, then more idiots will do the same. What would happen if one of use decided to stop paying property taxes? I guarantee that the county wouldn't wait 20 years to act! The feds need to come arrest the idiot in the middle of the night for making threats against federal employees then put a lean on his property and confiscate/auction off his cattle as a down payment on the million dollars+ he still owes.
Why dont you go out to Nevada to that special 1st Amendment Area they have roped off and tell them American cowboys yourself in person?
American cowboys. LMAO. Why don't you stop believing everything you watch on Fox News.
Great suggestion Phoenix, but people who think like Paul are owned by this government and see nothing wrong with these gestapo tactics. Perhaps the American cowboys he calls "idiots" could pay him a visit and educate him about citizen rights?
Oh look, a Limbaugh fan! Hey grandpa, this topic may be out of your range and me be a bit too much for you to handle. There's other topics in this forum, like checkers or shuffleboard, that you might want to check out.
More whippersnapper wisdom. Looks like "Old Poolman" has met his match. Sureeee, that's the ticket.
"Now that there is funny, I don't care who you are."
GAI doubt this young man has enough living under his belt to understand what is really happening in this country. It is fairly obvious he listened and learned from his liberal professors, and really thinks big government is the way to go. He no doubt has many more years left to live than I do, and I hope he really enjoys the new way of life under government control. Perhaps one day he will understand, but not before it is too late. Granted, it is easier to be a sheep than the shepherd.
I want to personally apologize to you for my generation dropping the ball.
Dang. Paul was a bit out of line by personally attacking Old Poolman like that. What did you do, badmouth Carl Sagan or gay marriage in another forum? He's my creative writing group (he's the one that turned me to Hubpages) and what's kind of comical is that he just turned 83. So there's no need for you to apologize for your generation, Phoenix V. Anyway, we see all these people come to support this guy, some armed, as if that's going to help. What did they actually accomplish? Bundy still owes a million plus dollars, still faced with other legal action against him, and the real possibility that the feds will do it all over again, next time better prepared.
Part of the problem is that the term 'gestapo tactics' does not have the same meaning to young folks as it does to folks who lived through that time. To the younger folks the term means they are willing to use force to win their argument, with no understanding that the same force will eventually be used against them.
Here is gist of it. An American did not want to pay desert turtle "protection money" or be involved in the ever increasing, ever changing, endangered protection racket, because he knew that the protection money shakedown would not satisfy what he thought the true intent of it was: to intentionally deliberately consistently thug him out, no matter how much he paid, no matter how many cows he was reduced to, no matter how many times they changed the rules, no matter how many politicians in bed with the chinese, no matter how many children of political families were in bed with the chinese and no matter how many helicopters and snipers they sent, no matter how many corporate media outlets spun it, he said no.
That is one way to look at it, albeit one highly spun and one intentionally insinuating false conclusions.
Another is that an American, making a living from public lands, decided he no longer wanted to pay the rent, did not wish to protect the wildlife on that public land, but still wanted the money he earned. So he stopped paying rent, doubled and tripled the numbers of cattle (at the expense of wildlife) and began making obviously bogus claims about who owned the land. This one doesn't contain lies, doesn't contain crazy insinuations like "children of politicians in bed with the chinese" and doesn't even have irrelevant pictures making crazy claims about Homeland Security.
Not as much fun to read, doesn't particularly raise the anger level and doesn't include conspiracy theories. Just truth and reality, giving an honest picture without hateful, political based judgements. Just another business stealing from the American public, and certainly nothing new there!Clark County Commissioner Tom Collins: “The U.S. government has perpetrated a bigger fraud on people over those tortoises than Al Capone did selling swampland in Miami”
A similar deal found on wiki:
U.S. v. Hage
In a similar[citation needed] case to Bundy, ranchers in 2007 were sued by the Justice Department for trespassing on federal lands in Nevada.[16] The ranchers are alleged to have repeatedly grazed livestock without federal permits despite repeated trespass notices from the BLM and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service.[16] The court found in favor of the ranchers for all other charges, including water rights, grazing rights and all but two livestock trespass charges in United States v. Wayne Hage (2013). In the ruling, the judge said, "government officials ... entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights. This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.[17]Are you now claiming that the permits were canceled? Because that's not how I read what I know about the case; I understand that the rancher voluntarily stopped paying the fees, while continuing to graze his cattle. And that he has lost every court case to date over that failure to pay.
If you are not claiming the permit was canceled (for anything but non-payment), just what ARE you claiming? That he had a right to graze without paying?
Does an irrelevant statement from a county commissioner mean that the rancher did not stop paying rent? Or that he has not made really stupid claims about who owns the land? Or that he is NOT grazing cattle illegally on land he does not own?
I tend to agree with Collins (although I know nothing of the turtle) but have a hard time using the statement as an excuse to run up millions in unpaid lease payments.How much money did he pay before the litigation began? How much money does it cost to protect desert turtles and eat tumbleweeds? How do you pay it when they change the rules reducing the amount of actual cows he can run? I don't think any reasonable person can conclude otherwise that the intent was to stop him entirely, under the guise of fees, permits and turtles.
You may, of course, make any conclusions you wish, but pretending that not paying rent while remaining on the land is a satisfactory solution doesn't make sense. Nor does doubling and tripling the number of cattle being put on the land even as you quit paying that rent.
Bottom line is that you have no solid reason for your conclusion except that the governmental agency of the BLM is a giant bogey man, out to get any rancher in the country and that just isn't so. Had he paid his rent while running cattle he would have had every right to have his day in court. Had he taken the cows off, he would have every right to a court case.
But he didn't. He decided he had an "ancestral right" to use public land for his own use (a totally crap claim and he knows it) and proceeded to do so in direct violation of the law. He made up excuses, plainly wrong, for not paying his rent. He intentionally and with malice grossly increased the cattle being put there, in direct violation of the law. Instead of pursuing his case in a court of law (and we ARE a nation of laws) he thumbed his nose at the American public and not only continued to earn money from our land but intentionally did his best to destroy a part of that land as he did so.
His actions are no different than any other entity, individual or corporate, that intentionally steals from us and gets exactly zero sympathy from me.When you say intentionally steals are you talking about the Federal Government?
Cattle Rustlers.If your neighbor parks his car in your driveway for 20 years, refusing to pay agreed on rent, do you have a right to it? The law says yes...
That is your version of "The Gist of It." And it appears to me to be a very emotional one that is only supported by perceptions. The real, (as revealed so far) "Gist of it" is that this "American" has decided he is above the law.
You seem to think it is OK for an "American" to pick and choose which law, or court, to obey. So you, and he, apparently disagree with the "turtle money" - but he was OK with paying the BLM fees before it went for something he disagreed with? Oh my.
And the "Chinese" connection? I bet you have some facts to back that up too.
Of course most of your assertions are easily refutable, but it would be a waste of time, (not to mention repetitive), to go on; it is obvious you don't need facts to form your opinion.
But... if you did, here is a good link from a "debunking site" Metabunk.org that links documents without bias - not journalist's or "spun" articles, to present the facts.
Yet there is a bright side. Just provide the proof that it is all a "Gubment" conspiracy, and I will be more than willing to eat my words and offer an apology.
Just think of it as a "Watergate to-be" scandal, and you can be the "Deep Throat" that exposes the BLM's dastardly deeds.
Until then, what you offer is nothing more than a rant.
Just sayin'
GAOh I see, he just thinks he is above the law. Lets all go home then? Just that simple.
I found it ironic that just after the situation was being diffused,at least for the time being, Harry Reid and his son seemed to be getting on TV throwing gas on the fire. Where there is smoke there is fire, had it not been for that....
- Onusonusposted 10 years ago0
I'm wondering if the outcome would have been different if it were not an election year.
Election years certainly seem to influence the thinking and reasoning powers of many politicians. Excellent point.
Thanks, after all I don't think the Nevada State militia could actually intimidate the DHS.
From Snopes:
"A March 2013 claim that the Department of Homeland Security had "purchased 2,700 tanks" for use in the U.S. was based on a year-old (i.e., March 2012) notice posted on the DHS web site announcing that a contractor had been engaged to install new chassis on a number of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles (not "tanks") that were being returned from deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although similar vehicles have been used by DHS (and local police forces) for functions such as carrying Rapid Response Teams to disaster sites, the DHS did not "purchase" the MRAP vehicles referenced in that announcement, and the chassis work was contracted for by the Marine Corps Systems Command. "It doesn't say tanks. It says armored vehicles.
The Snopes article is rather old - older than the picture you posted. At the time, the silly rumor was for "tanks", but it refers to the same vehicles, the ones the Marines brought back from the near east and were paying to repair. Or can you find copies of the receipts for 2700 armored cars purchased by the DHS?
Don't have any reciepts. Totolatarian governments tend to obfuscate the facts when it comes to public attention.
But what's that?
and that?
and this,
and this,
and this one,
and this guy, he doesn't exist.
I wonder if these armoured vehicles were really made in Communist China? Maybe a sweetheart cronyism deal with some US [sic politicians
The hubcaps are probably made out of desert turtle shells, considering they were shaking down Americans for one million dollars a year in endangered species "protection money" to wind up killing the endangered species themselves.
They look like trucks to me. One perhaps, or maybe 6 (or possibly a photoshopped Marine truck) - either way it doesn't quite look like 2,700. One is a very reasonable figure, one is downright stupid. Which do YOU swallow?
You're wasting your time, they can't tell the difference between a truck and a MRAP Armored Fighting Vehicle.
But the rumor started out as tanks! Only when the utter stupidity of that was made clear was it changed to MRAP trucks; I expect it will soon morph into buying 2,700 Cadillacs, then 2,700 tricycles for the agents to ride into battle.
A tank IS an armored fighting vehicle. The main difference is tracks and semantics. The picture Onusonus posted clearly says "armored vehicle' No one can possibly debate, discuss, argue what other rumors or people were all possibly categorizing them as tanks, light tanks, armored cars or AFV's - they are all armored fighting vehicles.
This is a pickup
These are desert turtle armored fighting vehicles.
This is an American.
Cool pics. Did you notice that "tanks" not only have tracks, but a major cannon, mounted on a swivel and controlled from inside? That there is a "turret" on the tank as well? Those seem to be defining factors as well - many vehicles are armored, many have tracks and many have guns - some even cannons - but only tanks have tracks, a movable turret and a single cannon.
In other words, a tank is an armored fighting vehicle, but an armored fighting vehicle is not necessarily a tank. Only in the minds of those attempting to make untrue claims (more conspiracy theories, in other words) is such a connection viable. The rest of us know better, and write off such silly claims or ask for receipts (strangely never found).I dunno - I'm not sure that anyone posting a pic of a chevy and calling it a "pick up" knows what "cool" means, either.
*edit* finally figured out what you meant and edited the post. Now EVERYONE will be confused!
Did you notice the picture says armored vehicles? Mount a Chinese PF-98 Desert Turtle missile on it and people on the internet could call it a tank destroyer, tracks or not. Regardless if its mounted with a Chinese PF-98 Desert Turtle missile, the picture still will say armored vehicle, correct?Yes, I noticed. Did you notice I mentioned that the rumor started as "tanks" but was changed to "armored vehicle" when people realized how silly tanks sounded?
And did you notice I did request some form of confirmation of the still ridiculous claim? Or that you promptly provided a picture of a (shudder) chevy and a man on horseback, but no rumor confirmation? Is that because it is just a neat picture but without truth?
Is that a Russian star on the picture of the desert turtle armored fighting vehicle?
Yes it is. They are probably solar powered communist desert turtle armored vehicles, sometimes referred to, as tanks by people on the internet.
oops
edit: Chinese StarAnd so it is, my bad, Chinese Star. And now I remember the picture and the story. That one sole non-rancher dude stood up in front of a line of Chinese Tanks in Tiananmen square in protest against an oppressive government.
So back to the topic, is it fair to say that here in America we do it in the desert?Probably not. I don't recall anyone in the square crying that they wanted access to public property in order to gain financially. I don't recall anyone in the square failing to pay their rent while occupying land they did not own. In other words, the square was not about personal profit taking, the fiasco in the desert most certainly is.
Is it not true that payment has been offered to the locality and/or State? And that on principle, they had not made the same offer to the Federal organization?
If that is the case, then it is more about who should be managing the land than it is about personal profit. If the man is willing to pay, then it seems that the local/state and federal governments can come to some sort of agreement on how that payment is handled.
As is, from this remote east coast point of view, it looks like nobody in the federal government is standing up to represent for the ranchers. Instead it has the look and feel of an imposition of the 'persuasion of power'.Sure - he offered rent money to someone that didn't own the land, that he didn't owe anything to and that had no right to either accept it or give him permission to occupy that land.
Do you really think that was honestly proffering the rent payment due? If you offered to pay ME for the rent of your apartment do you honestly think that is sufficient and you should not be evicted for non-payment, whether I accept it or not?
You're right, (I assume) - no government entity is standing up and supporting non-payment of rent while tripling the usage and profits being gained. Which I have no problem with. No government entity is supporting a business that decides they don't like the law and is therefore immune to it, unlike everyone else. Which I also have no problem with.Yes he is willing to pay it to the County its in. So when they try to characterize it as a deadbeat stealing tumbleweeds or shady environmental agencies propagandizing him as a welfare rancher, besmirching welfare recipients in the process, you know that Joseph Goebbels is smiling in hell.
Does that mean that when I offer your neighbor (who does not own YOUR home) $10 per month for exclusive use of that home that you must vacate it? That I then have rights to the home that YOU own because I offered rent money to your neighbor for it?
Convenient huh? Not long ago the Government enticed people to move there and places like it, with promises of land and grazing, because, well its desert and no one in their right mind, back in the old days would go there unless it had gold or silver there. They passed laws and acts, where people would get land or grazing rights ie land runs etc. Because it was good for the Country. Well now they want the land for themselves it seems and use unconscionable, unethical practices to do it as the Judge said in that one case.
And yet...I haven't seen one single case of a government agency trying to take over the homestead they offered people to go west. Just people trying to take over public lands owned by others, out of their greed when the homestead they got wasn't enough for them. You're right - "unconscionable, unethical practices to do it" as they destroy wildlife and land by running far more cattle than can be supported, all the while refusing to pay the agreed upon rental.
Its the principle of the thing. He cant just pay the county he lives in, He must be vilified as a thief, pregnant women thrown to the ground, guard dogs unleashed, people protesting, people tazed, helicopters used, probably calves run to death, and the 1st Amendment reduced to a piece of taped off area in the middle of the desert. Its the principle of the thing. He cant just pay the county he lives in.
Good Evening, PhoenixV. Do you mind if I join in the discussion?
As I followed the dialog between you and others, I realized that both sides were supporting the “principle of the thing.” However, it appears that they are not the same principles. I am also sure that you have principles too. So, let us discuss principles.
The first and undeniable principle is that Mr. Bundy has maliciously withheld rental fees from the BLM, occupied and used property to which he had no rights, and, thereby, stole from the American people, his own neighbors, and his fellow Nevadians. This would make him a thief in spite of all objections.
Secondly, Mr. Bundy’s offer to submit payments to the County were illegal. The County refused to accept the payments because it would have made the County Commissioners complicit accessories to his crimes. Paying rent to a third party that has no right to collect the monies clearly does not comply with the terms of any of the permits he held.
Now what does an honest man do when he is asked to vacate property he no longer has a right to occupy? Does he become defiant adding more of his property to the premises? No, he gathers up his belongings and leaves.
Speaking rationally, not emotionally, Mr. Bundy is a land use thief, a holdover tenant and a dishonest squatter. He deserves neither your admiration nor your support.
Nevertheless, hey, PhoenixV, you are free to admire and support anyone you choose.Harvey Whittemore, BLM, Coyote Springs, Land swaps, BLM - yall need to figure it out, Ya really do.
I am disappointed, You left out he probably steals candy from babies He probably has a nazi flag up in his garage. Maybe he's a member of the communist party too?
They threw a pregnant women down on the ground on her pregnant belly and then sicked a vicious foaming at the mouth looked to be rabid german shepherd on a innocent young man who was defending that poor pregnant woman and her innocent unborn child, who was struck repeatedly by inhumane electric shocks tantamount to being put in an electric chair, over and over and over again.
Nevertheless, hey, Quilligrapher you are free to admire and support anyone you choose.
It is fair to say that a human being should always stand up against injustice, whether its the desert or the moon.
And yet...you have steadfastly refused to do so.
Here is a business that, offered a business contract, decided they didn't like it and made up their own. Without any sort of agreement, they have followed their own version (run as many cattle as I like, without paying for the privilege) - a complete and total injustice. None of us has the right to arbitrarily write contracts that others must then follow, and that includes a rancher. Even a rancher that wants to use our land for personal profit.
So why haven't you stood up against this injustice? Because it's a business? Because the second "person" is the people of the country? It's an obvious injustice - why are you on the wrong side, declaring this yahoo can do whatever he wishes with our land?Here is a contract. Work for me for a dollar an hour until I change it to 10 cents an hour. And I want you to pay me 10 bucks to protect an endangered apartment cockroach, until I get you off the property.
I decline your contract. Does that mean I can make one up and follow it without your consent? Using YOUR land or belongings for my personal profit as I do so?
Because that's exactly what this rancher did - make up his own contract and follow it whether the owner of the land agreed or not.So what do you think this American family should do out there in the deserts of Nevada? It's quite obvious, to anyone with a lick of common sense, that they don't want him to be a rancher in the obsolete state of nevada anymore. Get a laptop and sell tumbleweeds on eBay? I doubt his rancher hands could hit a laptops keys accurately. Run for political office and call up some friendly lobbyists and campaign contributors and go into THAT business? Maybe he could funnel a little of that campaign money to his grand-kids for gifts or jewelry, that's cool aint it? Put some chinese solar panels on his place. That ain't the American dream, that's America's nightmare.
Number one is a choice of agree to the new contract (if it was changed) or find new work.
Number two would be to roll over and die - not a particularly viable option IMO.
But not on the list at all is to resort to theft, such as stealing the use of public land for private purposes. That would be like saying that when my hubs quit producing I have the right to occupy Paul's home (or cut it up for firewood) rather than find another way to provide for myself.
You seem to think that a one year contract is automatically good forever. It is not. Either roll with the changes or go under, whether a HP author or a cattle rancher using public land to generate private income. Neither you, I nor this crazy, thieving rancher has some kind of automatic right to use public land as he sees fit.Roll over and die or go under WAS THE PLAN to any honest person that is conscious.
But as Harry Reid and his boy cory ramp up the rhetoric which is needlessly escalating the reckless endangerment of potential life of ranchers, women, children and concerned Americans, they would be well served to realize that these aren't the usual nemesis of unarmed Native Americans in remote places away from recording camera phones. Maybe Bundy could sell knee-pads for those people without any moral fiber, integrity or courage and they can make their case in a roped off 1 st Amendment Area on their knees?That would be your plan? Die or go under? I'm sorry for you, but America was not founded by people that ever saw that as a viable option. And neither were they thieves, stealing from their neighbors.
"reckless endangerment of potential life of ranchers, women, children and concerned Americans" Quite a statement - can you back it up in the slightest, or is it just more rhetoric, designed to raise emotions without requiring a basis in fact?Its my opinion that when they are going on TV and radio shows saying that "its not over" and hes' not a hero he needs to be prosecuted" is not an attempt to deescalate or deter even more American Citizens to show up in the area and protest, just the opposite. From what I have seen so far in those altercations was a pregnant woman being thrown to the ground and a man who was defending himself from a guard dog attack was tazed several times. When people are saying "its not over" and saying "go stand in your 1 st Amendment area" dont seem to friendly or even American in my opinion. Harry Reid can go funnel some campaign money to his grandkids its alright with me, if it keeps his mouth shut till this cools down and is worked out in safe, fashion.
Here, it sounds like we can agree. It is totally irresponsible of anyone, rancher or not, to encourage others to break to the law or support their own illegal activities. When Bundy gathers thousands of friends to "stand up to the evils in Washington" as they take back the land he has stolen it is irresponsible in the extreme. Bundy will eventually get people hurt, or worse, in his determination that he WILL use public property however he sees fit, and without paying for the privilege.
Wait. Did you mean that all this about radio stations saying Bundy should be prosecuted (as he should) means that Harry Reid is "needlessly escalating the reckless endangerment of potential life of ranchers, women, children and concerned Americans"? Because that makes no more sense than ignoring that Bundy is robbing the country blind, running up millions of dollars in unpaid rent while continuing to profit handily from his illegal activities. The lawbreaker is Bundy, not the radio station and not Harry Ried. The thief is Bundy, not some TV editorialist. And telling people that isn't inciting them to cause "reckless endangerment of potential life" - that comes from ignoring that he is a thief and pretending there is even a speck of "right" in stealing from the citizens of the country.What I am saying is people are showing up despite claims that you make that he is encouraging people to come there and that Harry Reid can misappropriate campaign funds and live the life of riley on taxpayer money somewhere like in China until this cools down, because he has a taxpayer funded larger audience for his rhetoric.
No, you very clearly said Harry Reid is endangering peoples lives because TV and radio persona are telling the truth in the case. It may not make sense, but it IS what you said. You never mentioned misappropriated campaign funds, you never mentioned living in China and you never mentioned a taxpayer funded audience. Just that Reid is to blame for endangering peoples lives because of truth that someone else said on radio and TV. It doesn't make sense, but it DOES fit in with what else you have said here, ie that government is a big bad bogey man, Bundy is a hero that is mistreated just because he has stolen land use from the people for 20 years.
I think someone like that saying "this aint over" in a volatile situation like this where American Citizens are obviously protesting is needlessly ramping up THE RHETORIC that needlessly could potentially cause even more harm than it already has.
Maybe he could pack up some campaign jewelry and take a vacation and while he is gone and more cooler diplomatic heads prevail we can dissolve the State of Nevada, because after all it seems to me to be The Federal Land of The Armed Desert Turtle with a glorified Nevada State Line Sign stuck in at the borders.When Harry Reid said THIS AINT OVER.
1. Is he concerned with the safety of Nevada Citizens and American Citizens in THE current situation?
or is
2 he more concerned with the SUPPOSED reasons like disputed grazing fees, cows, turtles and tumbleweeds.
well duh
Judge Napolitano says He is fearful of that- this aint over rhetoric.
I concur.How about neither one? How about he is concerned with a thief, stealing from the American People to further his own financial well being?
And no, the only thing that scares me would be decisions to let it go on, allowing a thief (already admittedly stealing for some 20 years) to continue collecting his ill gotten gains at the expense you and I. Now, you might consider taking up a collection for him so he doesn't have to work like the rest of us, but as for me he can rot in jail, no different than any other thief.
And as far as the onlookers, out for a good time at the expense of cops, they can rot alongside of him. Or writhe on the ground with a taser electrode in them. If they have any sense at all, they'll stay away from the thief instead of standing up for him, but if not, well, perhaps it will improve the gene pool.
And there ARE no disputed grazing fees. Neither side, government nor thief, disputes the fact that he hasn't paid the requisite fees.People looking for a good time getting tazed and improving the gene pool?
The fundamental philosophical difference between you and I is this. You see the government as armed BLM and career politicians. Whereas I see the government as We The People and Freedom. And to use your term, thats not my boogey man, its yours. I think, We the people is your boogeyman. I think Freedom is your boogeyman, and you want to taze it outa the gene pool, because I believe you are spiritually at odds with that.There is a fundamental difference between the power of persuasion and the persuasion of power.
There is a fundamental difference between the rule of law and the law of rulers.
Politicians routinely obfuscate those differences."People looking for a good time {at the expense of a cop} getting tazed and improving the gene pool? ". You might want to complete the thought as it was written instead of spinning it to something it never was. And yes, if a good tazing could stop reproduction of anyone thinking it is fun to bait cops it would probably be a good thing.
And yet, you are quite all right with a thief ripping off "We the People" for 20 years, stealing millions from us. You wish him to continue, without "We the People" saying or doing anything about it.
OK - that's fine for you, but I am also one of those "We the People" and I take umbrage at a thief, active for 20 years, that thinks he should be allowed to continue stealing from me. Or at anyone else saying that the thief is an upright citizen and should be allowed to continue stealing from me. Of course, I don't care much for thieves...perhaps you don't mind someone stealing from you. Would it bother you if I came over and took the turf from your lawn? Or the siding off your home? If I killed off your dog so I had room to put my goat in your house?You can portray him as someone that yesterday went to the Redwood forest and cut down the biggest oldest sequoia and went into the firewood business if you like, if distorting everything helps ya sleep at night. I am not really concerned about my share of the tumbleweeds in the desert.
He said he is willing to pay the county he lives in. For some reason that isnt good enough? Gee I wonder why? That way (hypothetically speaking) the money can't be used to continue in thugging him out like all the others.
apparently not. Some people just don't seem to get the fact that when the police stop looking like this;
And start looking like this;
Eventually they will become this;
Some people are so gullible and naive and will believe and spin and regurgitate whatever is spoon fed them as history has shown time and time again.
Hi there, Onusonus. Where have you been? I have not seen your around much lately.
The reason why the police stopped looking like this…
And started looking like this…
Is because of this…
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Oqfrr26yTSY
Which was probably a bit before your time, I know, but you can ask your parents about it.
I agree with you. When I first heard about this story, I thought, "Good for Bivens. I am glad he is standing up for himself." But as I read into the reasons behind the BLM's actions, it is clear that Bivens has been breaking the law for years and the BLM is simply trying to enforce it.
Someone on the internet was calling them sporks.
OMG - I've played that game, out camping. A riot for newbies.
Thank you! I was beginning to think I had made up the memory.
Oh no - we still play it, using the younger children as the goat. Still works as a 6 year old will forget the punch line by the next year and we can do it all over again!
The government is wrong in the way they are handling this.
By not collecting the rent, they have allowed him to live rent free. Now they want to collect ALL the back rent they failed to obtain for twenty years? with force? No.They have taken this yahoo to court several times, where he lost. The response to losing was to increase the number of cattle being grazed.
Your solution would have been...what?The BLM did not wait 20 years to try to collect. They have tried before. With similar responses from Bundy and Bundy supporters.
There is even a hint that a couple pipe bombs may have been linked to his supporters.
Here is a timeline overview of Federal efforts to resolve this peacefully - going back as far as 1994, from the Washington Post.
BLM and Bundy Conflict Timeline
GA"Among the conservation measures required are the elimination of livestock grazing... in the protected tortoise habitat."
"Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a 'land grab,' are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve."
(...especially when when turtle soup is so delicious! Just kidding. However, man is higher up on the evolutionary chain than a a desert tortoise and has priority.)
It was not fair to take away his means of making a living in the very first place. He pays his taxes!
Get a grip guys! Its the same thing happening here in CA! Trying to protect fish which are not even indigenous! Apple orchards are dying because the govt. will not allow them to be watered!!!
TWISIHarvey Whittemore - Whittemore came under grand jury investigation, initiated by the Federal Election Commission, to determine whether he should be indicted for breaking federal campaign contribution laws. He was charged with four felonies with convictions on three of the counts...
.. Whittemore, his wife, and company contributed tens of thousands of dollars to Reid's election campaigns and to Reid's leadership fund, which was used to aid Reid's allies and is said to have helped Reid attain his leadership position.Federal prosecutors alleged that Whittemore had promised money to Reid, and in order to conceal his involvement wrote checks to family members and 29 of his employees or their family members,[b] who then contributed the maximum allowable amount to Reid.[6] Whittemore was reportedly one of Reid's closest friends,
In June 2012 Whittemore was indicted by the grand jury. Whittemore was found guilty by a federal jury of three out of four felony charges in May 2013.
n 1998, Harry Reid and John Ensign, Nevada's past Republican Senator, co-sponsored legislation removing restrictions to the sale of federal wilderness lands in Nevada. Environmental groups, who initially supported the bill because of accompanying protection of mountainous areas, now say they regret their actions.
_______________________________________________________________
In 2006, two public lands issue groups sued the federal government over what they charged was an illegal land swap between the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (an agency in the Department of the Interior) and Whittemore's Coyote Springs. The Western Lands Project and the Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association stated that the government had unlawfully exchanged almost 10,000 acres (40 km2) of protected desert tortoise sanctuary for property owned by Whittemore himself.
___________________________________________________________________
The United States Environmental Protection Agency initially refused to grant permits based on the projected environmental impact of destroying stream beds in the Coyote Springs Valley. In what EPA officials called an "unusual" move, Senator Harry Reid contacted the EPA administrator after a process including a phone call from his son Leif, Whittemore's personal attorney.[4] Soon thereafter, the EPA came to an agreement with Whittemore and also awarded Whittemore's company an environmental sensitivity award.
Environmentalists, residents of Utah and California and local ranchers fear negative consequences of Coyote Springs water usage, summarized by Las Vegas investigative reporter George Knapp as "pumping water in the teeth of a drought for golf courses."[13] Water rights issues initially interfered with Coyote Springs progress, but agreements were reached.[10][13] In coverage by Bloomberg, water rights attorney Greg James stated, “You need a large amount of money and some very powerful people to make water projects happen". Bloomberg notes that Harry Reid's son Rory is an employee of Whittemore's law firm ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Whi … te_SpringsA dying apple orchard is a very sad thing. Whomever can allow even one orchard to die is indeed insensitive, which is an obvious understatement.
But the dying apple orchards are there. You can see them with your own eyes in CA. This is not a myth.Who knows, some HYPOTHETICAL insanely corrupt politician probably wants to help a HYPOTHETICAL felony convicted campaign contributor in a HYPOTHETICAL 30 billion dollar housing project or golf course, and wants to use a HYPOTHETICAL Federal entity to act as their personal real estate agent, and hide behind a guise of an endangered species that they themselves are euthanizing and then some HYPOTHETICAL thugs are sent to assault a pregnant woman and shoot cows in the back of the head from helicopters so they can run someone out, so they can swap the land for their HYPOTHETICAL pet projects.
Read our own:
http://jeffduff.hubpages.com/hub/Constr … ExtinctionApparently the tax payers are/were paying them an astounding 1,000,000 $$ dollar budget a year for them to kill the endangered species themselves.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/121317? … ost2574678Endagered Species Advocates should support the Bundy Ranch 100% because it seems to me that Desert Turtles are infinitely safer....let me repeat that- infinitely safer, on his ranch than in these other guys hands. Not to mention Desert Turtles cant eat golf balls or spend campaign contributions.
What does this have to do with the Bundy issue?
The land swap "controversy" was between Aerojet and the BLM in 1988 - Whitmore's acquisition of the Coyote Springs land was a purchase - not a swap. And it appears to have occurred in 1996 - 1998, well after the Bundy dispute began.
The Coyote Springs land is NE of the Bundy disputed grazing land in Gold Butte - separated by a lot more than "cattle walking" distance.
So why bring this into the Bundy discussion?
GAWhat part of....., In 2006, two public lands issue groups sued the federal government over what they charged was an illegal land swap between the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (an agency in the Department of the Interior) and Whittemore's Coyote Springs.and Whittemore, his wife, and company contributed tens of thousands of dollars to Reid's election campaigns and to Reid's leadership fund, which was used to aid Reid's allies and is said to have helped Reid attain his leadership position.Federal prosecutors alleged that Whittemore had promised money to Reid, and in order to conceal his involvement wrote checks to family members and 29 of his employees or their family members,[b] who then contributed the maximum allowable amount to Reid.[6] Whittemore was reportedly one of Reid's closest friends ../. can you not figure out?
Coyote Springs, Nev. —
with as many as 159,000 homes, 16 golf courses and a full complement of stores and service facilities. At nearly 43,000 acres, Coyote Springs covers almost twice as much space as the next-largest development in a state famous for outsized building projects.
Helping make Coyote Springs come alive was an alliance between a multimillionaire developer and one of the highest-ranking members of Congress: Nevada Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader and a member of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee.
Over the last four years, Reid has used his influence in Washington to help the developer, Nevada super-lobbyist Whittemore, clear obstacles from Coyote Springs' path.
At one point, Reid proposed opening the way for Whittemore to develop part of the site for free -- something for which the developer later agreed to pay the government $10 million.
As the project advanced, Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore. The contributions not only went to Reid's Senate campaigns, but also to his leadership fund, which he used to help bankroll the campaigns of Democratic colleagues.
Whittemore also helped advance the legal careers of two of Reid's four sons. One of the two, Leif Reid, who is Whittemore's personal lawyer, has represented the developer throughout the Coyote Springs project, including in negotiations with federal officials.
"You have to understand how close the Whittemore and Reid families are," the developer said recently. "My relationship with Sen. Reid goes back decades." The senator concurs, calling Whittemore a longtime friend.
.
Equally important, the site was in private hands -- rare in a state where the federal government owns 87% of the land. Nothing remotely as large and well-located might come on the market again.
There was just one catch: For all its possibilities, the land had serious obstacles to development that only the federal government could remove.
A second problem was that ancient stream beds and washes crisscrossed the site. Though dry most of the year, as part of the valley's ecosystem they could not be bulldozed or otherwise altered without federal permits.
In addition, while the private owner controlled all 42,842 acres, the federal government had retained title to almost a third of those acres to maintain a preserve for the desert tortoise, Nevada's state reptile, which is shielded by the Endangered Species Act.
The tortoise's habitat was concentrated in a wedge-shaped area in the middle of the site. Here too, development seemed to be prohibited.
"For eight years, almost on a daily basis I have been working on solving the problems of the site," Whittemore said recently.
Today, with the obstacles gone and construction under way, Whittemore's efforts seem to have paid off.
Land's Recent History
It was the exigencies of national security that put Coyote Springs in play. In 1988, Congress turned the land over to defense contractor Aerojet-General Corp. to test rockets. The southern third of the land is in Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, and the rest is in Lincoln County.
The rocket range was never created and the land remained essentially untouched until 1998, when Whittemore paid Aerojet-General at least $15 million for title to the privately owned portion of the site and for the rights under a rent-free government lease of the tortoise habitat.
Soon afterward, Whittemore reduced his financial exposure by selling the rights to 7,500 acre-feet of groundwater and a well to the Southern Nevada Water Authority for $25 million. But he retained other water rights at Coyote Springs and has agreements with Lincoln County and its private water company partner to buy more for the development.
Almost immediately, Whittemore began to push for the title to -- and unrestricted use of -- the tortoise habitat in the middle of the site. He argued that moving the tortoise preserve to the eastern edge of the site, where it would abut federal land, would help the desert tortoise and remove an impediment to his project.
In 1999, regional officials of the Interior Department refused, saying that only Congress could approve moving the preserve. Over the next five years, Whittemore bombarded the government with proposals.
Finally, in 2004, the Bureau of Land Management agreed to give him title to nearly 10,000 acres of tortoise land in the middle of his site in exchange for equal acreage along the fringes. They called the swap a "minor" boundary adjustment,,
Appraisal Not Done
No federal appraisal was made to determine whether the land the government got was equal in value to the land it gave up, and some public land experts say the exchange may have been illegal.
"The law clearly wouldn't allow a 'boundary adjustment' of 10,000 acres," said Janine Blaeloch of the Western Lands Project, a group that advocates for public lands. "Congress drew the map of the leased lands. Congress would have to change it."
The bureau said it agreed to the land swap because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said moving the preserve would be good for the tortoise.
Neither Sen. Reid nor Leif Reid played a role in getting the tortoise preserve relocated, Whittemore said.
In 2002, Sen. Reid went to work on removing the power line corridor.
First, he and others in Nevada's congressional delegation tucked an obscurely worded provision into a huge land bill to benefit a wide range of interests in Clark County. The provision shifted the power corridor off Whittemore's land and onto federal land along the west side of U.S. 93.
The land west of the highway had been earmarked for "wilderness study," but a separate section of the bill reclassified the land to allow power lines.
As drafted, the bill would have done Whittemore a large financial favor: It required him to pay nothing for getting the power corridor moved to the west side of the highway -- even though it increased the value of his 10,500 acres on the east side by clearing it for development.
The giveaway prompted questions from the Bureau of Land Management and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
With the legislative clock running out, Reid and his Nevada colleagues backed off, removing from the bill the provision moving the power line corridor.
But another provision -- one that reclassified the status of the land on the west side so that it eventually could accommodate a power line corridor -- survived, and President Bush signed the bill in November 2002.
A year and a half later, Reid and the Nevada delegation tried again, inserting language moving the power corridor to the west side of the highway into a public land bill for Lincoln County.
This time, Whittemore had to compensate the government on the basis of "fair market value," but that was defined in such a way that would have required him to pay only about $160,000.
Drawing fresh criticism, Reid and the delegation changed the cost provision to say government appraisers should determine what Whittemore had to pay -- $10.4 million as it turned out. The bill became law in November 2004.
Just before that bill was passed, Whittemore announced a deal with Westwood-based Pardee Homes to become Coyote Springs' main residential developer. He also announced that Jack Nicklaus would design a set of golf courses to be known as the Bear Trail.
As the effort to clear a path for Coyote Springs moved forward, Whittemore showed his appreciation for the help Nevada politicians in Washington were giving him, especially Reid. Ensign and others got contributions, but significantly less than those given to Reid.
Political Funding
Since 2000, Whittemore, his wife and the Coyote Springs company have given Reid's senatorial campaign and political action committees at least $45,000. That included $35,000 for Reid's leadership PAC, the Searchlight Leadership Fund, which helped him advance as a Senate leader. Most of that money was contributed in 2002 shortly after Reid introduced the Clark County land bill.
In 2000, Whittemore gave an additional $20,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which Reid promoted as a party leader. Prior to 2000, the Whittemores had given Reid and his Senate campaign committee a total of $6,500, plus $5,000 for his leadership PAC.
Whittemore also helped Reid's sons, all of whom at various times have worked for the law firm in which he is a senior partner, Lionel, Sawyer and Collins. Rory Reid is a partner in the firm. When he ran successfully for the Clark County Board of Commissioners, Whittemore contributed $5,000.
He also gave Josh Reid $5,000 for an unsuccessful bid for a seat on the city council in Cottonwood Heights, Utah. Rory and Josh Reid have been active in Democratic politics.
Jon Summers, an aide to Sen. Reid, said, "Harvey Whittemore has a history of giving money to political candidates far and wide -- and to both political parties.
"However," he added, "as a registered Democrat, it is only logical that he would give a larger percentage to Democratic candidates and committees."
By the spring of 2005, only one step remained: securing a permit to deal with the stream beds and washes.
That process, handled by the Army Corps of Engineers, seemed routine, but in late July trouble struck.
Alexis Strauss, an official in the Environmental Protection Agency's regional office that oversees Nevada, notified the Corps of Engineers that her office had concerns.
"We respectfully object to the issuance of a permit for the proposed project because the authorization may result in substantial and unacceptable impacts to aquatic resources of national importance," Strauss wrote.
The phrase, "aquatic resources of national importance," was a designation that gave regional EPA officials maximum leverage to press for environmental concessions.
Rarely Invoked
Invoking such aquatic resources is rare -- done in only 1% or 2% of the permit applications that the regional office reviews every year, according to Tim Vendlinski, head of wetland regulation. "They weren't happy when they got that letter," he said of Whittemore and Coyote Springs.
_____________________________________________________________
Whittemore had not seen the EPA move coming and he called Nevada officials, his fellow-developers, Sens. Ensign and Reid, and Leif Reid.
_______________________________________________
Less than a week after the issue arose, Sen. Reid's then-top aide for energy and environment, Peter Umhofer, called the regional office. Whittemore said he had asked Umhofer to set up a meeting for him with federal officials. Umhofer also contacted the Corps of Engineers.
Officials at both agencies got the message that Reid was deeply interested in Coyote Springs, and Vendlinski made clear that Umhofer's intervention had upped the stakes.
"Any time a congressman calls, it kicks it up above my level. We treat correspondence from staff with as much weight as from congressmen," Vendlinski said.
At an Aug. 16, 2005, meeting, Whittemore, Leif Reid and their consultants tried to persuade the EPA to drop the aquatic resource designation. "They saw our letter as something that would bring their project to a halt," said John Kemmerer, the senior EPA official at the meeting. "They were interested in us rescinding it."
The EPA officials refused.
"It was a bitter pill for them," Vendlinski said. "The meeting did not end with a group hug."
Nonetheless, the developer and the federal agencies agreed to meet again in September.
Meantime, Sens. Reid and Ensign called EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson in Washington. The senators said Nevada developers were complaining about undue delays on permits.
Whittemore says he did not instigate the phone call by Reid and Ensign.
On Sept. 20, two days before Reid and Ensign were to confer with Johnson, three Reid staffers called the EPA regional officials to express Reid's concerns about permits, including developers' complaints that the EPA had become more demanding.
The next day, EPA regional officials sent briefing papers to Washington to help Johnson prepare for his talk with the senators. An e-mail from a senior EPA official made clear which way the wind was blowing.
I've taken the liberty of shortening the talking points and making them sound more conciliatory," said John Reeder, who's in the EPA's congressional relations office. When talking with the senators, "the administrator needs to hear them out and not take an argumentative stance," he said. "Let me know if you have any heartburn over this."
When Johnson talked to the two senators, they reiterated developers' complaints about the EPA's regional office and expressed the developers' concern about their ability to get permits in the future.
"It was very unusual for two senators to go directly to the administrator," Strauss, the EPA regional official, said.
At some point in the process, Leif Reid called his father's office about the permit issue. Sen. Reid's office says the call had no effect on the senator's actions.
Office Lobbying Rule
In 2001, the senator's office established a rule that family members could lobby his office but could not get special treatment. In 2002, responding to questions by The Times, the rule was changed to prohibit any lobbying of Sen. Reid's office by his family.
"For the last four years, our office has had a policy that Reid family members are not to lobby the office on business matters, even if those matters benefit Nevada," Susan McCue, Reid's chief of staff, said last week.
"Leif is not a lobbyist, but he should not have called our office. I have reminded Leif of this policy to prevent future calls," she said in a statement. Leif Reid did not respond to questions.
The contacts by Leif Reid and others "were not an attempt to have Sen. Reid's office direct the outcome of the federal permitting process," Whittemore said.
As it happened, by the time Sens. Reid and Ensign had their conversation with the head of the EPA, Whittemore's permit problem was all but over.
On Sept. 16, Whittemore, Leif Reid and others had met with EPA and other federal officials at the site and the atmosphere became conciliatory.
Coyote Springs agreed to leave several washes untouched, reduced the number of acres of waterways to be filled in and pledged to make environmental improvements on 19 acres of other wash land.
And Whittemore promised not to disturb the Pahranagat Wash, which runs through the site. Since Pahranagat is subject to flash flooding, development there was impractical, but Whittemore made its protected status official.
"They took our concerns seriously," Vendlinski said.
For their part, the regional officials were not looking for a fight. Whittemore had demonstrated that he could bring Sens. Reid and Ensign into the game.
Privately, some regional EPA officials said they knew their superiors in Washington would not support a hard line on aquatic resources.
The regional officials not only withdrew their objections, but in April 2006 they also gave Whittemore's project an award for "environmentally sensitive improvements" in its plans. A smiling Leif Reid accepted the award.
"One year and $1 million in consulting fees later, we got our permit," Whittemore said ruefully in an interview in May.
"It is the right thing to do," he said, "and there is an economic incentive in making the project proceed."
As Coyote Springs grows onto the Lincoln County portion of the site, more permits will be needed. But Whittemore's dream is on its way to coming true.
Looking back, he expresses pride in the achievement, and in how far he went to meet environmental and other concerns.
"The final product is the most environmentally friendly development ever proposed in Nevada," Whittemore said. "I want people to understand that I am the platinum standard."
http://articles.latimes.comWell, for one thing, you have to start typing slower. It's hard for these old eyes to read that fast.
And please try to remember that us oldsters aren't quite as mentally spry as you young whippersnappers. I practically broke a hip trying to stretch from "What part of..." through all that Reid stuff, to find the ending - "... don't you understand" - to finish the thought you started way back in the beginning. I almost had to take a nap.
But anyway, my age must be slowing me down more than I thought. The "lawsuit" you mentioned, (the plaintiffs were The Western Lands Project and the Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association ), was against the Bureau of Land Management, (BLM), and the Fish and Wildlife Services, (FWS), for not doing an analysis on a proposed "corrective patent" that did alter the habitat for the endangered.... Whew! This is wearing me out.
Here you can read all about it yourself - from somewhere other than a challengeable website:
Statement for the Record
Bureau of Land Management
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests & Public Lands
H.R. 762, Final Patent & Land Configuration, Clark and Lincoln Counties, Nevada
May 14, 2009
But with age, also comes the wisdom to understand tolerance is a virtue;;; so I won't hold your youthful arrogance against you. because I know only time can cure that.
And I won't make you stretch to finish one of my thoughts either...
What part of... (right below), ...don't you understand?
So back to the original point, what does this have to do with the Bundy/BLM issue?
I'm sure you can Google a map just as well as you can Google Wikipedia - check the map. Coyote Springs and Gold Butte. They are almost as far apart as your opinion of the little rancher vs. BIG Gub'ment issue, and the facts.
ps. Wikipedia is usually a good source to start looking for details, but it is not always a safe sole source for your facts. (but I am sure time will teach you that too - so just hang in there)
pss. I know I might be missing some connection your younger mind spotted right off the bat, so as I already mentioned, I am more than willing to apologize when you provide your facts that will show me the error of my thinking.
GAPerhaps, I am not able to relate the obvious. I suggest that you go to Harry Reids Facebook page and read the 25,000 thousand comments by just regular Americans explaining what this is really about.
So now you want to use social media and emotional comments as validation?
You are the one missing the point. I am not denying the existence of political corruption - by Harry Reid or any other politician. Nor am I denying the appearance of probable corruption in the Whittmore/Reid/other Nevada politicians dealings.
My point is that your Whittmore/Reid tirades are not connected to the known facts of the Bundy issue - which is the topic of the thread.
I hope I am sounding more cordial this morning. I had my Metamucil and a good bowel movement to start my day.
GAYou really want to talk about emotional comments, tirades and social media?
Do you work for Harry Reid?Well, I finally checked out Harry Reid's facebook - as you suggested.
But, contrary to your expectations, I was not enlightened. My opinion was reaffirmed. Yours is an emotional position that will not be altered by mere facts.
As for Reid's integrity - on that I share your opinion.
I am not really where you think I am, concerning my opinion on political corruption in general, and Reid in particular, but for the rest, I think I will follow Mark Twain's advice concerning discussions like this.
GAThis advice?
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.At least, it not the answer of an automaton.
I agree. Mr. Anderson conducts himself in a gentlemanly fashion, something that an impetuous youth, such as I, could learn from, given the subtle nuances of his courteous nature that I am unaccustomed to.
No, I meant your answer is not the answer of an automaton. I like your "impetuousness!" Most other comments are the answers of automatons! I guess land grabbing by the government is just fine for them.
But this isn't about the government land grabbing, it's a private individual land grabbing!
The government has a history of land grabbing, after all:
He claims it was his land which his family homesteaded. Did anyone pay his family for the land???
Oh my, such a complimentary response. Thank you.
But... unfortunately for me - as a self-proclaimed curmudgeon, I cannot let it stand uncorrected. I tried too. This is the third time back to this thread.
I do not mean to be rude, but that was not the Mark Twain quote I was referring to.
On the plus side, perhaps your, and most of those facebook commenter's, misguided comments, might cause a little more public discussion and awareness of the corrupt political dealings that are the bread and butter of too many politicians.
GAUnfortunately, "public discussion of corrupt political dealings that are the bread and butter of too many politicians" is leading to people being labelled as domestic terrorists by those same politicians that are the target of the discussion.
Been there, done that. There is nothing more intimidating than being hounded by blind followers of a finger-pointing politician who has no rational basis for his claim.
There is a couple I think. To those wanting to just see the comments on the latest post for example, go to the Senator Harry Reid Page, and click view more comments. They go into the thousands and people are really upset about something. I think this is the something you are trying to encourage others to see if I am not mistaken.
They aren't just finger wag comments. I was like, wow. People are begging others to wake up and at least take a look into it all. Calling people domestic terrorists is over the top and un American of him. He minimizes what true terrorists do and has engaged in bad tactics.
-
You might want to ask yourself these hypothetical questions.
What part of blatant graft and corruption done by Politicians and their families can you not understand exactly? Is the BLM a personal realty agent for corrupt Politicians and their families financial benefit?
Is the BLM a paramilitary group operating outside the bounds of Congress to carry out heavily armed military actions against the American Citizens, because they really work for corrupt Politicians and their families financial benefit and whim?
Does Smokey the Bear make a pile in the woods in a roped off 1st Amendment Area?
Very sincere question here. Are you seriously okay with your tax money supporting corrupt politicians? My guess is no. If not, why would you be okay with a man making his living/fortune by using that same tax money to fund his ranching operation? For 20 years. After repeatedly being asked to stop?
Since Harry Reid's latest inflammtory rhetoric and judging from the 15,000 comments on Harry Reids Facebook page and other places of comments that I have seen, it looks like everyone there believes that Harry Reid and his family been doing more grazing on public property than all of Bundys family cows have for last 140 years
Yeah. But it's not Harry Reid we're talking about. It's Bundy. And focusing on Reid's bad behavior shouldn't remove the focus from Bundy's. And if you support him so strongly, why are you talking about it instead of joining in the standoff? See where incredulity and hyperbole may make an entire argument lose any sense of credibility? Which ultimately just means that rather than disagree with it, people just start ignoring it.
When can we hope you will start ignoring it? Do you have a point? It would be insultingly naive to reduce this to its about Bundy and cows. It morally disgusts me to even reply.
As I see you've responded despite your disdain for the reasonable questions of another human being with every right to engage in, or rather, reflect on, a conversation, I have to gather that you have chosen to be morally disgusted and enjoy the experience? What I see here is no different from what everyone complains about from the mainstream media and the government. Shift the focus until the original question is lost in the morass. People will then forget about the original point and dance on its grave while they denounce someone else's misdeeds. I realize that my one or two responses in this thread indicate my obsession with cows. I'll deal with that with my therapist.
- if the land is public, why can't his cows graze for free? It helps the environment by fertilizing the ground. He is being charged a million dollars. How can he pay it? And don't you think the cows and the turtles can all get along?
- maybe not. But, cows are pretty slow… and maybe step more carefully than we give them credit for...Well, couple of things here. If he had been paying since 1994 (which he has NOT) he wouldn't owe a million plus. As public land, we all pay for it, and the government manages it. We all share it. Oddly, I think it's reasonable that if land is publicly owned and funded, and one person takes more from the land than others, that he should in turn pay more for its management, unless financial hardship or disability precludes him from doing so-and not just because he doesn't want to anymore.
Lord, I know this won't be politically correct, but screw the turtles. Cows don't eat turtles. How much of a real threat are they, and if it's that big a deal, rope off a preservation area that doesn't interfere with the human food supply or means of making a living.
Lastly, though, pay your rent, and if you don't, don't ask the world to make you some sort of hero for that. Even public housing projects were never free, and people got evicted when they failed to meet their rental obligations.
The objections that I have to the current situation in Nevada are almost verbatim (not all but) in language and spirit, many of the objections, indictment and grievances leveled towards the King of England, articulated by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Almost verbatim. Go read it.
When some are so above the law (while conversely breaking and making a mockery of laws) that they can actually and subjectively use the law as a weapon and create new laws, and create new agencies and Acts and arm those agencies and manipulate those laws, regulations, Acts and agencies and impose that intimidation against those that are receptive to justice and victims of the injustice, they become despots worthy of the full force and extreme prejudice, of the truth and light.Understood, and agree. Bundy considers himself so far above the law that he can make new laws on his on whim. He can decide who the land really belongs to, he can decide what animals need protection and he can decide how many cows the land will support. He can decide how much rent he should pay, and whether he should pay it or not.
He has made up a whole raft of new laws, all designed to benefit him and him alone, at public expense. He is making a total mockery of ownership, land stewardship, endangered species, lease law and even environmental protection. He has threatened our civil servants with death and has (through his proxies and friends) held loaded weapons on them. He has imposed massive intimidation on those civil servants and employees trying to bring justice to those (you and I) that are the victims of Bundy's injustice. He has indeed become a despot worthy of the full force of the United States as necessary to stop his thievery.
And yet some people ignore his actions and treat him as a hero. Incredible, isn't it?Nevertheless Mr Bundy is not under arrest awaiting a trial by a Jury of his peers. Meanwhile, some people might have the opinion that it has the appearance that Harry Reid has his own private army/real estate agent [sic disguised as a federal land management agency and in essence is declaring war on the American people without Congressional approval.
PS I did not say Simon says and you are not confined to your first Amendment areaWant a side bet on whether he WILL be? He's already been to court several times of this fiasco and lost every time; now that he's become violent he's headed for bars.
And Harry Reid, no matter how hard to try to change the subject, is not the problem here. He may be a problem, but he is not Bundy and is not the topic. The thief called Bundy is.
"And yet some people ignore his actions and treat him as a hero. Incredible, isn't it?"
I'm sorry. I just don't see Bundy on par with the founding fathers and don't see this issue on par with the colonial grievances against England. I do, however, believe you entirely within your rights to hold an opinion. I just think the hyperbole and accusatory tone against those who hold a different one to be less productive than you might be hoping for.
I have watched videos and read umpteen bazillion articles and timelines. We disagree. It happens. We're free Americans with the right to do so, just as Bundy's freedom has, for 20 years, allowed him to choose another place to graze his cattle and multiple legal and nonviolent ways to cooperate with the government.
My favorite part of his freedom was with what appears to be him refusing to pay money under a guise of it supposed to be used for the betterment of the land,but in actuality would have been used to kill his life liberty and pursuit of happiness ie the ranch they homesteaded for 140 years, which was the intent.
We should not be expected to pay a thug, not to beat us up when we know the money is being used to buy more thugs to beat us up. That would be stupid.
So he did the right thing and refused the injustice and used his own money to maintain the property, which is the only just and right thing to do.
Mr Bundy is old school and just does not know how to play the game of buying off every tom dick and corrupt HARRY, pun intended.I think you really want this whole thing to be the fault of the government. Planning a second revolution or just hoping someone else will?
I would be more willing to discuss it with you if you would offer something more substantive than "its about cows eating our priceless tumbleweeds and scrub-brush" and ridiculously over-simplified assessments and demagoguery.
Here is a trial run, on a unrelated subject. What do you think of this:
Mining on BLM Land , Barrick Gold Corporation from Canada and its subsidiaries acquired ownership of precious metals and minerals on U.S. public land for about $2 per acre, and maintains possession of the claim with a small per-acre fee, typically $5 each year. Barrick Gold Corporation pays no royalties to the federal government for metals and minerals mined from this land.
Something fishy! Inconsistency, AND no animals being killed? I think you aren't supposed to be sharing facts like this! Tsk tsk......
Perhaps it is in no way the same whatsoever, and you are making a big deal out of nothing? lol-
Public Land ---> Foreign country ---> 2 bux per acre ---> No royalties ---> extract billions in gold
---> leave behind meteor impact crater
American rancher family --->140 years of their lives and American history--->cows eating tumbleweeds ---> send in some corrupt politicians personal army
what is so inconsistent about that?Only everything.
I conclude that the most reasonable response to all of this, is that the rancher is a thief scumbag and those supporting him are domestic terrorists!
(It should be more funny than my sarcasm seems to be allowing for, but the ludicrous nature of it is obvious. Its actually very much NOT funny.)
What is tricky and unique about this one is the loophole part. High emphasis put on the c, iminality of the rancher and of the cows eating the tumbleweeds while fertilizing the ground. That is all one thing and could be dealt with normally with pens and paper.
All this other including the strong response from Harry Reid, and all the side stories make more sense of the greater issue going on, while allowing the other example you gave. If American's truly don't care about ALL the facts when I think freedoms are at stake and corrupt powers get ahead, then don't they kind of deserve more of the same? There is plenty of corruption to keep driving the corrupt and can live long lives and not be ever satisfied. So this won't end, even if American's are too busy to bother with it now. The corrupt know this. Some just don't care, some don't get it, some are too busy to do anything bout it, yet all American's that trust their government? Thus, the examples you gave to help wake people up. I appreciate it.When GA said he was missing the connections, I gave him the benefit of the doubt: mistakenly and suggested reading the 25,000 comments on Harry Reids Facebook page, in an honest effort to help him understand my and tens of thousands of other American's position.
One of the key issues (among many issues I take exception with) regardless of merit or veracity, it has the appearance that a rancher was being charged fees under a "pretext" of it being a mutual coexistence between an existing rancher, and the betterment of the land etc. Then they changed it to include "protection money" - from - turtles. Then they changed the amount of cows allowed. Thereby exposing what appears to be an obvious malicious and dishonest attempt, corroborated by all the other ranchers in the area - of wanting him off the property - period -, so speculatively, they can use the land for themselves, perhaps for multi-billion dollar golf courses in the desert, perhaps so they can swap properties with Harry Reids campaign contributors.--
Furthermore, if the aforementioned scenario is true, we can expect an American family to act exactly as they have and we can expect a hypothetically corrupt politician to act exactly as they have.
With B. Land Management like this, who needs Extinction Level Meteor Impact Crater Events, like that?
I thought the original point had nothing to do with Bundy and the cows. I thought the original point was that Americans were disgusted by the display of a persuasion of power being imposed on a non-represented citizen who is being subjected to a law of rulers. I said it before and I’ll say it again, there is a difference between civil ‘rule of law’ and ‘the law of rulers’.
I see it very differently...it is simply about people feeling that they should be above the standards everyone else must be held to. And about skating without meeting one's own obligation, and screaming bloody hell when the result isn't the one he wanted. Everyone is doing everything they can to make it about everything else, but that's what I see.
It's ultimately claiming inherent rights to something that does not belong to one person alone.
Oh my goodness, LOL.
I'm still upset about the cows, and tortoises! Where are the animal rights activists and why aren't they activated over this?
Oh, as far as gestapo tactics, the feds had a court order to gather Bundy's cattle. If this was 1930's Nazi Germany, or even Stalin's USSR, the Gestapo/SS or Cheka wouldn't need a court order. Bundy and all his supporters would of been surrounded and shot. Any survivors would be rounded up and the show trial would begin while their mass grave is being dug somewhere in the desert. The headlines would read "Domestic Terrorists Defeated!"
If this were all about what we are being told it was just about, this could all be solved with pens and papers. The normal processes in place would be more than sufficient.
Its all the extra stuff, side stories, over reaction, drama, etc that rightly has people taking a second look. If it is just as they say, there should be no harm in that.
People usually care more about the animals at least than this. In a world where human life takes a back seat depending on who you talk to, why aren't people freaking out about the innocent cows and tortoises? On a normal day, they would be up in arms, protesting too, even if in a little roped off area getting guns pointed at them. They would stand up all the more! So yeah, its gotten more stinky than clear over time.Based on a radio show conversation, Bundy’s fundamental issue isn’t with an out of control government taking control of his personal land, but that he disagrees with how that land became federal land when Nevada was founded in 1864:
CLIVEN:
"You’re talking about the Enabling Act of the people of the territory of the state of Nevada."
(An enabling act is a piece of legislation by which a legislative body grants an entity which depends on it for authorization or legitimacy of power to take certain actions. For example, enabling acts often establish government agencies to carry out specific government policies in a modern nation. The effects of enabling acts from different times and places vary widely. Wikipedia)
"And remember, in the — section of the Constitution, we’re talking about territories of Nevada...it says the United States Congress will have power to dispose of all rules and regulations within the territory. Now, let’s think what we’re doing. We’re talking about the territory of Nevada. People of the territory of Nevada. They do not have the Constitution. They’re within the territory and Congress had an unlimited power to make all the rules and regulations. Okay.
The people of the territory petitioned the United States Congress to make this a state. And they have a clouded title. So in order to clear their title, they give up their public domain — forever. It sounds terrible. Forever? But let me tell you what they had to do. They had to give it up forever so Congress would have a clear title.
And what did Congress do? It made a state of Nevada... It doesn’t matter what happened before statehood. What matters is what happened at the moment of statehood: At the moment of statehood the people of the territory become people of the United States with the Constitution with equal footing to the original 13 states.
They had boundaries around them, a state line. And that boundary was divided into 17 subdivisions, which were county. I live in one of those counties: Clark County, Nevada.
And in that county, Clark County, Nevada, we elect our county commissioners, which is the closest to we the people and we elect the county sheriff and we pay him to do what? Protect our life, liberty and property.
I’m a citizen of that county. I abide by all the state laws. It’s not BLM land. It’s Nevada land."
"Essentially, Bundy is saying this conflict isn’t inherently about grazing fees or water rights, but that he ultimately does not recognize the lands to be federal and the United States government or the BLM, (US Bureau of Land Management,) do not have jurisdiction on the land."
http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/04/14/nev … -property/
Q. Does the BLM have legitimate jurisdiction?The clown went from being a complete idiot to a low life POS after his recent remarks against blacks. I hope that the feds finally arrest his dumb ass and throw in him the tank with a bunch of brothers!
Bundy never was an idiot: an idiot does make millions of dollars by stealing from the American public for 20 years. An idiot tries it and immediately fails, but Bundy was smart enough to work the system and maintain a thriving business at our expense.
But POS - absolutely!Good point. Although he claims the land is his because his ancestors worked it. Whoopy do! Somewhere in the county courthouse there got to be some sort of transaction and transfer of ownership. Like the birth certificate fiasco, where's his deed to the deputed land? I'm sure the fed's has theirs or else the judge wouldn't granted the BLM a court order to seize his cattle (one would think anyway).
But...none of that is relevant. Bundy's sole purpose is to continue to extract large profits from public land. To do that he needs to continually shift the focus, to draw attention away from his illegal grazing and onto something else. This time around it's whether the land is owned federally or by the state; in the past it was the claim that he could do as he wish because his ancestors ran cattle there.
There is only one goal here, and it isn't to prove state ownership - it is to gather more of that nice, folding green stuff into Bundy's pocket, and I think he's won another round. The BLM has pulled out and he has thousands of people crying tears of sympathy for a thief. It takes a pretty smart man to accomplish that, but he's done it completely to the point of enlisting armed men ready to shoot public servants to "protect" his thievery. It is actually quite amazing, both his ability to fool others and the stupidity of his supporters.I'm thinking about squatting on a section of the national park here. Who do I call to get these fine patriots to come support me when I start receiving fines and court orders to move? Do I need to wait to be tasered first or do I call when I receive the first court summons? Is their service free or do they offer package deals? I want the package where they bring their wives and girlfriends to be used as shields when things go south.
Last I heard the skinheads of northern Idaho were looking for a cause; they are currently with Bundy, but might be open to a change.
No need to wait, such idiots are always spoiling for a fight and doubly so with any government agency.
I think you are getting a bit over the top here Wilderness. Thinking he is wrong, (and I do), is one thing, but vilifying him without any facts to back it up is another.
Other than the facts that prove his claim to grazing rights is wrong - what do you have?
You dispute his opinion and stance that it is a state's rights against federal rights issue - but, right or wrong, he is entitled to his opinion and to both fight for it, or suffer the consequences of holding it. Which he seems willing to do.
You call him a thief - and technically he is, but... if his actions are guided by his beliefs - then is he really a true thief with ill intentions, or a thief due to his actions?
As for stealing millions of dollars from the American public - let's take a look at that.
I will chance the assumption that the thing you think he has stolen is the grazing fees he should have paid all these years. So...
BLM's grazing fees were between $1.23 and $1.35 per head. They called it AUM - Animal Unit Monthly
The best estimates I could find from various sources were there were 500 - 900 head grazing the disputed area. That number fluctuated, and included feral, (as in non-Bundy) cattle.
So I will brazenly declare an arbitrary number of 750 head for this example. And I will use the max. AUM - $1.35
That adds up to $1012.50 monthly, or $12,150.00 yearly.
So if he stopped paying in 1993 - he owes 20 years of grazing fees, or $243,000.00 - hardly millions.
Even if you wanted to jump in and shout about lost interest, or government use of the money, or whatever baloney qualifier imaginable - it is still hardly millions.
To give you as much chance to be right as possible - I didn't even mention any of the range improvements he paid for that the BLM would have paid for - had he paid his fees.
Anyway, I am certain you will hold to your perception that he is a villainous thief, and now that he is also a piece of shit too because of his latest remarks.
sorry bud, but I think you are letting this one get the best of you.
Just sayin'
GAIt's true that I absolutely hate thieves, and have a "thing" about them.
But Bundy - Bundy doesn't believe the state's rights thing at all. He's one smart cookie and knows better than that, plus he paid the feds for many years. No, it's just misdirection while he continues his illegal activities. An excuse, not a belief at all.
And then tie in the threatened violence he has encouraged and condoned and the problem balloons. Again, nothing about high flying beliefs, just his own pocketbook and putting lives on the line to fill it.
As far as what he's stealing - how about the ill gotten profits from his illegal activities? How about the use of the land for someone else, whether grazing cattle or wandering through the area admiring the pristine landscape dotted with cowpies? But in any case, the "millions" comes from media reports, supposedly via government reports. Does it include penalties, late fees or other punitive costs? How about court costs and fees, or court ordered payments? I don't know, and don't really care - whether $10 or $10,000,000 it is money he owes you and I, refusing to pay it while continuing to pull profits from the use of our land.
He is indeed a POS.Greetings GA.
Wilderness does not need me to speak for him. Therefore, since verifiable facts are conspicuously absent from your post, I will share some of the facts you choose to ignore.
Your post states this position: “You dispute his opinion and stance that it is a state's rights against federal rights issue - but, right or wrong, he is entitled to his opinion and to both fight for it, or suffer the consequences of holding it. Which he seems willing to do.”
Which he seems willing to do by using illegal force and armed resistance, using lies, creating self-serving legal arguments that are invalid in the real world, and by distorting his own family’s history and that of the State of Nevada.
Not only is there proof that his claims to grazing rights are factually wrong, but there is also proof that his claims Nevada has a legal right to US government land is also factually wrong. As Mr. Cliven Bundy knows, in 1864 Nevada abandoned forever “all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States.” {1}
The family of Mr. Bundy’s wife homesteaded land near Mesquite, NV, but his own parents did not buy his farm near the Bunkerville allotment until 1949. The family did not begin to graze cattle until 1954! {2}
Therefore, Mr. Bundy knows Nevada never had ownership and never had a legal claim to US public lands now managed by the BLM, that is until he stopped paying grazing fees. {3}
His threats and intimidation include inviting and playing host to a small army of out-of-state gunslingers some of whom are planning to place their women and children between themselves and law enforcement authorities. ABCNews reported, “A group from those supporters, some who had ventured across state lines to support Bundy and his family, stayed behind to guard the 67-year-old's melon farm and cattle ranch. {4}
Did you say HE was willing to fight for and suffer the consequences of his opinions, GA?
Then reality begins to fade. “You call him a thief - and technically he is, but... if his actions are guided by his beliefs - then is he really a true thief with ill intentions, or a thief due to his actions?
What is this, Doublespeak? Regardless of his beliefs, he is a thief technically and legally based on his actions AND his ill intentions! He has not attempted to accept responsibility for his actions. In fact, Mr. Bundy intentionally and maliciously withholds rental fees from the BLM, uses and abuses property to which he has no rights, and, thereby, steals from the American people, his own neighbors, and his fellow Nevadians. This makes him a bona fide thief in spite of doublespeak objections.
Then the baseless, unsupported and illogical smoke and mirrors begin. “As for stealing millions of dollars from the American public - let's take a look at that.
<SNIP to remove meaningless assumptions and vodoo mathematics.>
“So if he stopped paying in 1993 - he owes 20 years of grazing fees, or $243,000.00 - hardly millions.
Even if you wanted to jump in and shout about lost interest, or government use of the money, or whatever baloney qualifier imaginable - it is still hardly millions.”
“The [BLM, representing the American public] said Bundy owes more than $1 million in grazing fees and fines and hasn’t paid the BLM for more than 20 years.” {5}
The government keeps a running tally of his 20 year old tab and publicly put the total at over $1 million and you pretend to know better.
How gracious you are to grant us “as much chance to be right at possibe!”
However, the facts do not need patronizing offers in order to be true.
Mr. Bundy has refused to pay grazing fees for two decades and he has used armed resistance to defy court decisions instructing him to remove his cattle from a public grazing range he is no longer authorized to use. He admits to being a holdover tenant. He is a commercial rancher who abuses the resources of the Bunkerville allotment for personal profit. Without BLM permits, he illegally grazes a herd that is five to six times larger than his last authorized limit. He claims to have ancestral grazing rights that both the courts and the media have determined to be invalid.
Then the rhetoric begins to sound more like Mr. Bundy himself. “I didn't even mention any of the range improvements he paid for that the BLM would have paid for - had he paid his fees.
No, you did not mention them. Therefore, I will not mention that a deadbeat tenant is not reimbursed for any improvements he claims that are not actually authorized by the agency created by Congress to manage the property.
Finally, you try to excuse his outrageous comments. “Anyway, I am certain you will hold to your perception that he is a villainous thief, etc. etc. etc. because of his latest remarks. Sorry bud, but I think you are letting this one get the best of you.
Just to be clear, GA, Mr. Bundy has a Constitutionally protected right to say this about black Americans:
“So what do they do now? They abort their young children. They put their young men in jail because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves picking cotton.”
Anyone who applauds that sentiment or does not find in it reasons to openly criticize the character and mentality of Cliven Bundy, has, in my opinion, earned themselves the privilege of burning a cross on my front lawn.
Just sayin'
{1} http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/ … d-grazing/
{2} http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevad … ine-events
{3} http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/ … d-grazing/
{4} http://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-milit … d=23394097
{5} http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy … m-incidentNow that was refreshing - to see you jump in with an obvious opinion, rather than a "Just the facts Ma'am" response, I mean.
I am glad my comment provided that opportunity. Even if you did misconstrue the intent of my words.
Generally I agree with most of the points you made, except for the "he stole millions" part, which I will come back to. (and your final one too!)
While I agree he is in the wrong, in almost every action and opinion - my point was, and remains, that beyond the fact of his past due, (stolen?), grazing fee monies, all the rest is supposition and inference - not facts.
For instance; you say
"...by using illegal force and armed resistance,..."
- Of course I may have missed it, but I don't recall seeing any images of him standing in defiance with gun in hand, (although I would not be surprised if it did occur - perhaps you can link to a couple of those images/articles)
If your reference was to the groups of "supporters" - where is your factual evidence that he organized and orchestrated their actions? The few statements I read, from them, or attributed to them, said they came there to support Bundy. I did not hear any say Bundy called them there and guided their actions. Perhaps you have a link for this proof of fact that removes your statement from the category of opinion.
Of course I am with you on; "... creating self-serving legal arguments that are invalid in the real world..."
... but are our beliefs on this supported by facts of psychic certainty - or opinions formed by appearances and circumstantial facts? Just because we think it is obvious he is wrong in his assertions - can we definitively say he knows he is wrong and his actions are pure deceit?
As for your linkage efforts concerning the Nevada land vs. Federal land issue that prove he is factually wrong - I completely agree. But I am sure you must have noted that I said he was acting on his beliefs - not facts. I was already aware of the legal history of that issue.
Your following efforts to prove he is wrong were needless expenditures of your valuable time, I already said I thought he was wrong too. But back to the original point; does our concurrence prove he is hiding malicious intent behind a cloak patriotic disagreement? Or are we just saying our opinions of his actions are obviously right and his wrong. Addressing his beliefs, have we provided facts that prove he is lying about his beliefs, or just facts that his beliefs are wrong?
Do you have a "smoking gun" taped conversation or confession of him admitting that his stance is all a ruse? So are we discussing opinions or facts?
Doublespeak? I am surprised, and sincerely offended that you would make that accusation. Have I shown such a trend in the past?
I point out that there is a possibility the man is acting on the conviction of his beliefs - beliefs which I have stated I think are wrong from the very first post that started this thread, and beliefs that although easily proven factually wrong, have not been proven to be maliciously intended as a vehicle to defraud the American people. And you accuse me of doublespeak?
Dropping your preferred cloak of neutrality has harmed you this time Quill, you could not be more mistaken about my intent in the comment you responded to.
I will finish with your contention that my assertion that he has not stolen millions as was Wilderness' claim, and your affirmation.
In the context of theft, as in unpaid grazing fees, as in the object considered stolen - the amount of his theft can only be factually proven to be in the neighborhood of $245,000 - not millions!
Your effort to expand the stolen amount to meet the claim of "millions," by including fines and other unspecified accrued monies, (like the $200 per day court ordered non-compliance fines), and government claims, fall short of disproving my statement.
He may owe millions to the government by now, but the point discussed was the money he "stole," not what he owes.
ps. Your final remark;
"Anyone who applauds that sentiment or does not find in it reasons to openly criticize the character and mentality of Cliven Bundy, has, in my opinion, earned themselves the privilege of burning a cross on my front lawn."
An obvious Klan reference... Is truly offensive to me. I only referred to his "latest remarks" - I did not address them or applaud them! And the fact that you would make that reference, rather than questioning why I said what I did, along with the "Doublespeak" and "patronizing" accusations, seem to validate your good reasoning for typically offering fact-checking responses, rather than opinions.
I never purposely don a cloak of neutrality to hide my opinions, so I have no qualms about offering a bit of advice about what you can do with your "Just sayin'."
GAIf Bundy is willing to pay the county he lives in, yet says he is unwilling to pay the feds because he/they believe that the fees were only being used as a weapon against the ranchers and then we "with our own eyes" see the BLM, kill some cattle, bury them, leave some to rot, and destroy infrastructure, I can see why those that oppose Bundy are left with, strawman, poisoning the well, and ad hominems. Black and white thinking, so apparently displayed, is not reality. Black and white thinking is a symptom of poor debate skills, weak position or some other disorder.
As I see it, As each incident unfolds, I feel that complicit entities are exposed. Some major multimedia are blacked out completely on the subject. Other alternative media immediately jump in to cover it in an effort to deflect and red herring it, by disingenuously aligning it in a partisan way. That way they can claim its a partisan thing, or a phony scandal. The largest multimedia who have thusfar been observing a blackout on the subject, immediately come out of blackout when they can take an edited "hit piece" out of context and smear into yet another dichotomy. The "us and them" are being used as a tool. There is no "us and them". It's just "them" and they are playing the people like a fiddle.If I pay your neighbor $5 per month rent, may I then claim use of YOUR home? I paid rent, after all...
I certainly agree about the us vs them, though. "They" are playing the American public like a fiddle, producing emotional arguments without a shred of truth, and getting armed people to aid them in stealing from the people. Incredible, but true; "they" have accomplished what no sane person would ever allow.Can I have your house now? I didn't see an answer to that, OR to the bigger question behind it, of why you commend Bundy for offering to pay someone for something they don't have.
After all, his offer is nothing but a grandstand effort to raise emotions; he knows, as well as you and I, that the county (or state) cannot legally accept his money, that the county (or state) cannot grant grazing rights, that the county (or state) cannot change the grazing limits imposed by the BLM or ESA. So, nothing but a grandstand effort, without real meaning behind it.I would not pay anyone to maliciously kill my cows and destroy existing infrastructure either. If fees were being charged under a pretext of it being a mutual arrangement, but in reality, the fees were being used against the ranchers, I would be unwilling to pay paul, to kill peter, either. That is what they are claiming, that is what other people are saying, that is what a judge basically said in another case and that is what my eyes actually saw. I am aware of the details of the counterclaims.
Sorry - neither you nor Bundy gets to decide what use rent monies are put to, any more than you get to decide what your landlord may purchase with your house rent.
And if it isn't a mutual arrangement, get the cows off the land, because THAT certainly isn't mutual!
No government employee destroyed any "infrastructure" that they didn't have a total right to destroy. Meaning Bundy does NOT have the right to build whatever he wants on land I own.
You know, despite Bundy's claims to the contrary he does not own that land, does not have a right to use it as he sees fit, and does not have the right to assign ownership as he would like it to be. Bundy has exactly zero right to anything there until he pays the agreed on lease monies, and then ONLY to do what the lease specifically authorizes him to do. He may not write the lease and demand that the United States agree to whatever it says; instead he either agrees with what the owner (the US) says or stays off it. That he wants free use holds no water with anyone except himself and a few whackos that think this is the old west, where guns make the difference and laws are non-existent.At least no one can claim stupidity about the apparent true intent now. Nothing refutes a presumed intent of caring for endangered species like killing them yourself. Nothing refutes a presumed intent of collecting a bill for fees, than killing the assets, Nothing refutes a presumed intent of range betterment than killing cows, digging mass graves for them and destroying infrastructure.
Based upon the media shenanigans and desperate smoke and mirror, I am starting to see a Federal Land Run of 2014. Where soft target ambiguous property such as the current Red River boundaries in Texas are being gobbled up. Lets face it, 84% of Nevada is just not enough. And they have total right to kill and destroy whatever it takes to get it I guess. But no one can honestly say: DUH, its about impounding assets to pay for legitimate fees.Nope - IMHO, most of the ESA is crap. While it has done some good, it is grossly overridden by the harm it has done.
But that has exactly nothing to do with Bundy refusing to pay rent, or with doubling the cattle he is running, or with refusing to follow court edicts. Nothing at all, for Bundy does not have the right to dictate how to treat endangered animals, either.
Nor was there any infrastructure destroyed that was at all illegal to do so. The government had a complete legal AND ethical right to destroy anything on that land, whether built by Bundy, the government or anyone else.
You know, it does nothing for your (Bundy's) case to switch topics or make gross exaggerations. No land has been "grabbed" here. No land changed ownership. There is nothing at all to indicate anything about such tactics. Only about Bundy stealing from the people of the country.
I've never seen; can you give links showing what happened to the impounded cattle? You insinuate they were destroyed even as the claim was that it was taken as rent, I assume per court order. I had thought it was returned to Bundy. Can you provide evidence of actual disposal, in any manner, of any cattle? (Please, no horror scenes of cattle inadvertently killed being buried - lets stick to intentional disposal, per plan, of Bundy's illegal cows). An inter-office memo, with instructions to kill and bury the cows, would certainly support your position, while a bloody picture of a cow, maybe with audio of crying children in the background, being bulldozed under will not.
Even though those cows belong to the country in any case (as Bundy refuses to take them off) it would still be nice to know they are being used to reduce the debt owed.On one side you have a BLM that wants unpaid fees, turtle protection money and they want to reduce a ranchers cattle by 80% - to come up with it. The courts say to impound the cattle - for the unpaid fees.
On the other side you have a rancher family that is claiming that the fees and reduction of herd is in reality a pretext to get them out of there and inevitably out of the cattle business altogether there, like all the other ranchers.
The BLM's actions of destroying property and of killing cattle and burying them in mass graves and not seeming to have a real plan of actually selling the cattle- (from states that refused to allow them in) shows that the Bundy's were correct in their assessment.
So what do I believe? Incessant, inane prattle from anyone and everyone, or my own eyes?No problem with that, although you claim they want the money for turtle protection and that is patently false. They want the money for the people of the US, and will spend tax collections for the turtle protection. Yes, they want the cattle run there reduced (although not by 80%) but if Bundy doesn't like that, don't accept the terms. He does not have the right to unilaterally change the lease to whatever he likes. So they are supposed to impound the cows to pay his debt - great! They absolutely should, and that puts a halt to the lie of burying hundreds of cows in the desert.
We can all make claims, can't we? But Bundy has been unsuccessful in proving any of his, hasn't he? And even if he is correct, it is not his choice whether to allow cattle, or how many cattle, on land that doesn't belong to him, which this does not. In other words his claims are bogus but even if true are irrelevant.
Sorry, I have repeatedly asked for links showing both of those items, and you have repeatedly ignored the request. I can only assume that both are false, just more PR from Bundy that you have swallowed without bothering to check. Indeed, you already said there IS a plan for selling the livestock, to help pay the debt.
You will believe whatever you choose. If you approach the question with a built in bias that the government is always wrong and that thieves are always right as long as it is public property they are stealing it will be that poor little Bundy is being forced out of business because the US government hates him. Or at least the 10,000 employees of the BLM all hate him. If you look at court records, records from the BLM, and even Bundy's own words you will believe that he is a thief, intentionally stealing from the public and refusing to follow the law in spite of losing multiple court cases. Which IS what Bundy says; he is grazing cattle without paying the required lease monies according to Bundy himself.Do a Google Image Search on "BLM Mass Graves". Thats one heckuva way to impound and sell cows for fees. Do a youtube search on damage to water tanks etc.
I cant and wont post images here of dead cattle being dug out of a mass graves with mini excavators.
If you are not EVEN knowledgeable of these photos and videos or are incapable of doing a Google search to get your own links, then its pointless to discuss it.
I really wanted to talk to GA on the "media non coverage" of it until it aligned with what I saw as an agenda. Then they came out of the woodwork. Maybe the "rancher is scumbag thread:" is a more suitable thread for you. That seems to be more suited/ applicable to your arguments.
What is your take on this GA?
https://twitter.com/Yankeelfan/status/4 … 3596864512Sorry, but I don't have a take on it.
The Bundy issue is like the Malaysian airliner incident - done to death. After the first quick rush of initial known details - everything else became just speculation and side-issue fillers that the news agencies, (mostly cable) put forth to fill airtime.
I don't recall hearing any significant new details about the Bundy issue since the first days. But I may have missed something as I have only been giving it half-an-ear since then.
Why is a tweet from someone called Yankeefan important or proof of something?
GAI watched NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams as did that twitter person quite a bit and as the twitter person said - never was a mention, until they could take something out of context.
I bet neither of us are surprised by that. It is too obviously true of many more issues than just the Bundy controversy.
Media bias... oh no! "Say it ain't true Joe"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQveng3Wxz8Idk GA, I would think a bunch of cowboys on horses standing off heavily armed BLM would warrant more than one Fox News Truck. What I am saying is there is a difference between media bias and no news truck at all. Pretty big story I would think. But instead, NBC chose to focus on an edited (not in its entirety) video statement provided by the NY Times.
I think the bias is a ruse. Fox covers it, to MAKE it partisan. But Fox News sticks with the script, but with a big govt-little guy spin. Make it partisan, then its discounted as partisan. Divide and conquer. Now Fox never even heard of Cliven Bundy. Aint that convenient.
Cliven Bundy does not seem to be fluent in 1984 Orwellian Newspeak, nor does he seem the type of person that would present a distorted version of something or present his opinion of something and deceitfully and immorally claim that if anyone does not agree that, they are capable of klan activity. Thats would be about the lowest debate tactic I ever heard, and I do not see that type of guile in him.
Quilligrapher,
After seeing my response live, and having a day to calm down, I regret the harshness of my last statement, as shown above. Such a statement has no positive value and lacks the "turn-a-phrase" mastery you so frequently exhibit. An apology is sincerely offered.
GAThank you, Gus. I understand; I accept; and I truly appreciate your post.
In return, I have no qualms telling you I did not intend to follow your advice about what to do with your "Just sayin'.” We’re cool.
Good. That helps relieve some of my consternation that my point would suffer from the dilutive effect of being perceived as a rash and impulsive defensive remark.
GAPersonally, I would not roll over and take that. I would rather have my integrity than be seen as a classy guy. Quill can't post a quote in its entirety. Why is that? Wildness cant do a google image search on BLM mass graves and post a picture here of a mini excavator digging dead cows out of a hole in the dessert. Why is that? Why didn't Quill talk about the Watts riot or how some people think Mexicans or Mexican Americans have a better family unit than American Caucasian families. Because Quill couldn't craft a smear with that?
In one sentence without pretense explain that for me, will ya?You make the claim - you back it up. That's how things work - you cannot expect people to just accept every crazy claim they see and try to prove it right. If you have actual knowledge it will be a simple task for you to type in the URL; if not I'm not going to find it FOR you.
You cant search on Google Images for "blm mass graves:" and post an image here? LOL because itsa a crazy claim and you are not going to do it for me? The onus is upon you to prove you can do a google search and post the picture of a mini excavator digging up dead cows
Not interested in proving I can do a google search; it has nothing to do with the theft by Bundy.
I posted a link to prove the BLM did bury the cows in graves and they were dug up and shown to be shot. One was shot seven times. But that bad Bundy guy?
With all possible due respect, I see some serious turning of a blind eye in this case, if the focus is only on Bundy's "theft," while ignoring the powers that be could be doing anything wrong. It disturbs me as an American citizen that there are people that don't mind massive problems on the one hand and focus on the tiny ones over here or there. It seems to be severe "side taking" which usually is serving an agenda driven thinking.
One of the naturally occurring problems with simple "side taking" is that you must continue to defend that side when all reason goes out the window. People choose this and it puts them into corners sometimes, and it would be me too if I did this, in fairness.
Warning, not for cow lovers, but here is a link to the mass graves dug by the BLM for those that don't believe it happened, or don't know about it.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1220627/bundy- … ic-images/
So sad and unnecessary. They didn't deserve it and where are the animal rights activists?Maybe it's my fault, I just assumed everyone on the internet knows:
How to search on Google
Graphic image of "crazy claim"What I got from the article, stripped of it's emotionalism:
There were around 3 cows buried (presumably by the BLM and presumably on the land in question). They were either shot (broken leg or neck?) or "run to death", (which can happen during roundups). I do see a note that several animals were killed as a safety factor for the men there; something I would absolutely expect to see. I would not ask men tasked to round up cattle to risk their lives to keep a recalcitrant bull alive; if it must be removed from the land and poses a threat to life then shoot it.
What I did NOT see indication of was the "mass grave" implication of a hole with hundreds of dead cows in it. What I saw was what I would expect to see when a group of untrained men and machines are trying to round up cattle over rough terrain while another group threatens to shoot them.
I also have to wonder just a little about the "whole story" here - why and how is that excavator out in the middle of the desert, miles from any road? Or is instead at the pickup point on a decent road (you don't trailer such a machine down a 4X4 path and you don't walk it far that way either) meaning there was a real reason for the dead cows there. Were they diseased and shot? Were they intractable and could not be loaded by "city" cowboys (as noted above)? Unlikely they "ran to death" right at the road, so why were they killed?--
So now it's not a crazy claim, after all and you are now suddenly an expert on the matter and PR guy for the BLM.
You change your tune like a broken jukebox.
Even BLM admits to killing at least 6. They apparently took blow torches to water tanks as well as other damage. That isn't impounding cows to pay for fees. But I am glad you now know How to search on Google and are now suddenly aware that cows were killed, drug, dead or alive to be buried in a large hole in the desert that contained several other cows."Even BLM admits to killing at least 6." Link please? And no, I won't google it and search it out; if you want to be believed, back up your claims.
Need I repeat that I saw no evidence of the "mass graves" or the other emotional insinuations you provided? Just a couple or three cows being buried in what appeared to be pretty open land. And no, I saw no evidence that cows were drug more than a few feet into the grave. And certainly not that any were buried alive; will you provide a link for that or just assume that everyone will believe it without evidence?
"They apparently took blow torches to water tanks as well as other damage." Link please? And no, I won't google it and search it out; if you want to be believed, back up your claims. Please include documentation that they had no legal right to destroy the tanks as well as documentation that someone had a legal right to construct the tanks that were destroyed; those ARE rather important questions, are they not?
The Claim
PhoenixV Wrote:
Wildness cant do a Google image search on BLM mass graves and post a picture here of a mini excavator digging dead cows out of a hole in the dessert. Why is that?
Now all of a sudden, Wilderness is an expert on something he called a "crazy claim" only two posts earlier. Crazy claim literally one minute ago, now, one minute later, an expert on it. Why is that? How embarrassing.Did you know...descending to personal attacks is a good sign that a speaker has run out of anything of value to say?
Bye now, you have a nice day.
OK, in one simply stated sentence, here is my explanation, as it pertains to me - only:
*Did you notice that Quill did not stoop to calling me a name - he let an inference do it for him. Smooth.
A second sentence:
"I am fairly sure Quill and I both understand what the other was saying."
... and a bit more...
It's like the old adage; "Different strokes for different folks."
But I am disheartened that you viewed my responses as "... rolling over." Hopefully Quill is as perceptive as I perceived him to be, and doesn't hold the same opinion.
(...ouch, perceptive and perceived in the same sentence - I can feel those English teachers cringing)
and one more "but"...
Even if he isn't - what have I lost?
ps. Regarding your frustration concerning parsed quotes and apparent ignoring of additional points - and speaking only for myself, both serve to keep conversations, and sparring contentions on topic. It helps avoid the old stand-bys you frequently see one side accusing the other of doing; raising "strawman" issues to "muddy the waters" and tossing out "Red Herrings" to misdirect your attention.
pss. Contrary to your implication - I think I am still a classy guy with my integrity intact.
GAWell I do believe you have class. Perhaps you even have enough class for both of us, because I was not so inclined to allow a poorly crafted smear of that high/low degree to go by.
You just don't know me yet. I almost called someone an idiot once - before I remembered it wasn't their fault - you just can't fix stupid, so I gave them a "bless your heart" instead.
I have even been known to cuss in front of the ladies in the forum, and even worse - argue with gay folks about homosexuality! You can't get more classless than that.
But I am glad it at least looks like I am improving, and I give all the credit to my absolute aversion to looking like a knucklehead - which is frequently the result when the little head wins out over the big head.
See - I can to be classless!
... and I have enjoyed our conversations, especially since you started seeing things my way.
ps. seriously speaking, consider this, what do you gain by responding in kind to a smear?
GA"See - I can to be classless!"
You can always tell the classless - they can't spell "too".
See!!!!! I was right! I knew my buddies would vouch for my classlessness.
(must be one of those darn English teachers)
GA
Gus, your class and integrity remain unscathed.
Yes, I guess Mr. Bundy would not fare well in the 'pokey', as 'the brothers' will be more than happy to introduce him to the 'black experience' or is it Negro?
'Afro-American experience'? Does anyone know why, if you don't just make something up, Bundy waves the US flag when he says he doesn't recognize the US gov't?
It encourages sympathy for him; obviously a strong American he deserves your guns and rhetoric backing his illegal business efforts.
Oh my! Aren't you the tolerant one. OMG! He said Negro instead of the properly PC "Black" (or is it African American? I'm behind on my studies)
Gracious, he has the intolerable un-PC audacity to vocalize a view that compares the "Black" youth crime and death and life situation of today to the ol' days view of happy folks on the porch. Let's tar and feather the bastard!
He grew up in an area and era prior to the civil rights movement - what the hell? Don't old folks know that any memories or impressions prior to the era of PC must be suppressed and acknowledged as socially unacceptable? Subject to arrest and a humane rehabilitation process if discovered?
Tell you what. I have a different take. You are the intolerant one. I think it was Ron White who offered this piece of advice that would probably serve you well...
"The next time you have a thought... just let it pass."
GA
How about a little gasoline to stoke the Bundy fire - or at least I bet that is how his supporters probably see it.
Is the BLM really so tone deaf that they did not think moving on the Texas situation now would not be the best idea.
FYI, in case you don't know, BLM is laying claim to a big hunk of privately owned Texas land because a river changed course.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texa … ready-Ours
Yup, Bundy is right, it is a BLM conspiracy to steal more private land.
Buttttt...
GA
Related Discussions
- 27
Obama administration argues for detention of Americans
by Reality Bytes 12 years ago
Even though he stated he would veto the bill if it included the indefinite detention of Americans, Obama signed the NDAA bill in to law. Now an injunction is administered by a judge questioning the Constitutionality of this part of the law and the Obama team is appealing the decision. When...
- 14
Cliven Bundy: Hero or Scumbag?
by Sychophantastic 10 years ago
Look him up. Rancher in Nevada grazing his cattle on public lands.
- 7
Is there any real reason why government needs to be involved in marriage?
by Brad 9 years ago
Is there any real reason why government needs to be involved in marriage?There is no constitutional right to marriage based on the constitution.Marriage until recently was the domain of the states and they set the requirement for licensing marriage.Then the federal government took over and told the...
- 35
Mexico is asking to enter the suit againt Arizona, with the US Gov
by dutchman1951 13 years ago
Should the Courts allow this? Why would a Foreign government be allowed to sue any US State? Have we already lost State rights? What the H... are we doing, even entertaining a idea like this for?
- 192
Arizona versus the Federal government and California
by tobey100 14 years ago
I support the Arizona Immigration Law and I'll gladly tell you why....I've read it. All of it. I've been slammed from every corner for supporting profiling. I always ask my critic, "Have you read the law?" the answer is usually a resounding yes yet, when I ask them...
- 82
The Medical Community And Religious Beliefs
by Sharlee 23 months ago
FEDERAL COURTS Published December 10, 2022, 1:10 pm ESTFederal appeals court bars Biden administration from forcing Catholic groups to provide transgender care.This is the second federal appeals court to block the Department of Health and Human Services from using Obamacare to mandate transgender...