Nevada rancher stand off.

So whatcha all think about this issue?

On the fence about this but here is what I've gathered.
Rancher knowingly grazing his personal cattle on public property without paying grazing fees that other ranchers do.
Gov says pay up, rancher says no, gov says pack up and get off, rancher says no.
Militias show up to stop gov from over reaching, things get more tense.

Come to think of it, unless I'm missing something, I'm on the govs side.
My federal taxes go to maintaining fed property AND farm subsides.
I have to pay "user fees" for access to most public lands as well.

Reports keep saying other ranchers pay the grazing fees and this rancher is quoted, out of text granted, that he has no contract with the gov.

Was going to put this in the round the keg forum but figured it might get a wee bit emotional.

So in the words of Johnny(not our johnny  )
FLAME ON!

Looks like it might be over? Maybe?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/12/us/nevada-rancher-rangers-cattle-showdown/index.html?sr=fb041314ranchercattle1p

Yep, I agree, that rancher is a free-loader and for 20 frickin' years!? I hope he pays through the nose and then does time behind bars. Easy solution - if you can't afford the feed don't own the cattle.

This whole charade was an exercise, showcase, and litmus test of government power.

The strongest qualifier the government has is to protect an endangered tortoises. Government has stated that funding for the tortoises isn't there. Yet they can bring out hundreds of armed

Media speaks to how the Bundy's and supporters are armed. Forgoing BLM has military capability spread all over. MRAP's, snipers, AR15's SUV's and trucks with lifts, bring in resources from other states for this operation. Government unnecessary escalated the situation.

Bundy's are claiming rights to the land around the 1880's. BLM wasn't an agency then. Department of Interior functions can roughly be established in 1849. Placing federal government ownership of the land Bundy's ranch occupies is difficult. Yellowstone the first National Park was established in 1872.

1867 the boundaries of Arizona, Nevada and Utah were adjusted to where they are observed today.

The only improvements government has done to the land is blow up atomic and nuclear weapons all over it for decades.

Government over decades has continuous been increasing rates for grazing rights access for decades. The desired effect is running off the ranchers. Bundy is one of the last. There's more cattle on the land other than the Bundy's. There's cattle there from ranches in Arizona.

Government owns over 80% of all land in Nevada land. This is a land grab with ulterior motives. Harry Reid's former staffer was appointed to head the BLM, Roy Reid was spear heading an effort to run electricity and transmission lines for solar panel complexes. Documents removed from BLM's web site indicated that the deal for the solar array and transmission lines was an investment from a Chinese company worth $5 billion. The project documents outline the need to have Bundy's ranch vacated for the project and investment.

The BLM is stealing from Texans too.
http://www.rfdtv.com/story/25206377/oklahoma-texas-border-dispute-has-ranchers-worried

Property disputes have been going on since before the US was formed. Using rivers and vegetation lines for property lines is not nor has ever been a good idea. Easy to do but still not a good idea.

Yes there may be more cattle on the lands that Bundy is using, but are they not paying grazing fees?

They have been re-surveying parts of Michigan for years and are finding property lines off by over 100' in some cases. Back in the day with chains people made errors that compounded across the counties. You own the legal description of your property, not where farmer John put the cow fence 100 years ago.

Quote :

NEVADA, April 12, 2014– Turtles and cows have absolutely no relevance to the situation in Nevada. Does the Constitution make  provision for the federal government to own and control “public land”? This is the only question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government “owns” approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate’s soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the “Property Clause”. Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.

Read more: http://benswann.com/lofti-who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis/#ixzz2yt9Q7zLU

Issue seems to hit home for quite a few who call the area home and their livelihood.

People are fed up with the constant overreaching Federal overlords, from this, to the NSA, to the drumbeat to grant amnesty to every soul on the planet who enters our country illegally, to putting some phucking animal or another above humanity, to the constant "YOU ARE A RACIST!!" crap spewing from every orifice of our current regime.

Average Joe and his family has had enough. From all of them. The government has pushed too far, for too long and what we are seeing in Nevada is just a small sampling of that built up frustration.

BLM was created in 1976 under the DOI.

BLM has the authority to regulate all permitted uses of land across federal, state, and local and private property.

BLM govern the use of lands within it's sole discrtion.  Zero representation by the people by any legislative branch.

BLM operates with legislative and executive authority with little judicial involvement as the BLM sets their own precedent.  It defines regulation, implements regulation, and governs regulation all without any oversight, vote by the people, or public comment or representation on standards or decisions.

Elected officials have zero authority or oversight with the BLM.  The BLM is self sufficient with all three bodies of government, legislative, executive, judicial.

BLM claims property rights, legislates regulation, levies taxes and rates, and executes its own regulation, and is self governing.

Overtime the BLM simply declares itself authority powers over all kinds of loosely defined areas of responsibility:  mining, energy use, critical infrastructure, environmental protection, environmental zones, research areas, homeland planning, waste disposal, boundaries, property lines.

Eminent domain is now used as a tool to take from others and offer to the highest bidder.  BLM is a federal eminent domain bureaucracy.  The BLM's motives now removed from its website is electrical and solar projects that use public funds to front political aspirations.  It has zero to do with the tortoise.

In 1993 the Bundy's refused to pay the higher yet again grazing fees.  The fees effectively have run off the majority of other ranchers that were using the land.  It made the business insolvent.  The fees appear to be the soft approach to the end goal is to have the government the sole proprietor and operator of the land and aceess to any water resources so it can expand it's authority and crony capitalism goals.

If were truly a tortoise thing, the EPA would be involved, not Harry Reid's cronys down at the BLM.

As soon as media coverage dies down, look for the IRS to seize this mans property and bank accounts, if not the FBI outright killing all of them.

It isn't over, it's just been delayed until the cameras have gone and forgotten about it.

http://www.mynews4.com/news/local/story/Sen-Reid-on-Cattle-Battle-Its-not-over/nT5weKnqFkezV14I5GhESg.cspx

Harry Reid, "Its not over."

Good 'ol hard working Harry breaking ground in March of this year at a solar farm near the Bundy ranch.

Judge Napolitano weighs in.

joemac wrote:

Good 'ol hard working Harry breaking ground in March of this year at a solar farm near the Bundy ranch.

In the interest of equal and balanced information, here's what the other side is saying...

Quote :

Bundy has been trespassing over 750,000 acres of U.S. public land to the south of Mesquite and Bunkerville, Nevada. Bundy’s actual private property is his melon farm at Bunkerville, which looks like maybe 100 acres on Google Earth.  There is a solar farm. But it is not on the huge swath of land Bundy is trespassing on. The solar facility is actually under construction near the Moapa Indian Reservation about ten miles closer to Las Vegas.

That's why there's a slew of Native Americans in the photo.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/13/right-wing-disinformation-bundys-land-is-not-solar-farm-for-harry-reid/

Article opinionates most if not all the context.  Everyone has an opinion but not their own set of facts.

BLM's own documentation declares the Bundy cattle impact the planned solar projects.  This information has since been removed from the BLM web site.  The solar projects are not mentioned by BLM as the reasoning for wanting Bundy gone.  Look to peoples actions, not words to understand the real intent and desired intended outcome.





BLM map from 2012 does indicate Bundy property is within the project area.  Above list reasons they want him gone.  No mention of turtle, nothing about the grazing fees. If the grazing fees and revenue were all that important as they are made out to be, why would BLM be running the ranchers that were the source of the revenue? Bundy fortunate or not the last man standing as now taken a stand.  Why?  Because it sin't about the grazing fees.  Its about control, ultimate control and authority of property, land, resources.  In the dark of the night they can make back room deals with foreign interests, kick backs, campaign contributions.  All the while the American people are having their country sold out from under them.

A "federal" court ruling in favor of the BLM is like allowing GM gets to regulate and set precedence for recall notification, then getting to rule on itself. Even Judge Napolitano stated for this issue to be ruled on without conflict of interest it should have been done in state court.

BLM has closed many public roads in the area to cut off access.  This is about control.



Why not place a lean against Bundy's property and assets?  IRS would do such with similar tactics if I was deemed to owe money.  IRS doesn't send armed military like people out for collection or eviction, well usually.  Why?  Because that doesn't fit the solar projects timeline.  Bundy has been at odds with the government for over 20 years.  Now all of a sudden there's a sense of urgency to immediately evacuate the "trespassers" with military like force and arms really speaks to the tyranny of our government.  Government is more concerned with it's protecting its own institution and establishing its authority more so than serving the will of the people who supposedly they work for.  What a concept.  Federal government already owns 84% of Nevada.  Might as well just concoct a couple other reasons to take the remaining 16%.  Couple of new regulations, add in some taxes and a dose of military force aught to do the trick.

Shiree Bundy Cox's story -> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3143026/posts

joemac wrote:

In 1993 the Bundy's refused to pay the higher yet again grazing fees.

You give our government too much credit if you think they have been working on a 20 yr solar program.

What do you think happens if I don't pay the proper ORV fees at the state and federal parks?
Doesn't matter if I don't agree with the pricing.

There has always, ALWAYS been corruption in government.
I'm pretty confident you will find nepotism went on back in 1776.

Is it worse now or do we just hear more about it with better communication?

They haven't been working on the solar program for 20 years, just recently. That's why just recently they want him gone and were content not to give a shit until now

Kinda reminds me of the squatters who occupy foreclosed homes and then try to claim ownership even though the never paid for it. They know it wasn't theirs but go in and use anyway.

Who's the squatter? The Feds or Bundy?

That is where the problem is. The Feds today can decide you are a squatter, take your home and give it to some jackass promising a economic windfall for all.

There was at one time 53 ranchers in Clark county Nevada.  The Bundy's are the only one remaining.   This speaks very clearly and defined the motive and action desired by the federal government, they want the family and what they do vacated from the property.

This fight isn't over grazing fees, this is simply extortion and the government using it's power and capability to assert authority when you no longer want to pay their rate of extortion.

Upon review this isn't exclusive to Clark county.  One case where a federal judge ruled that the BLM was operating a conspiracy to drive a family out of the the home, ranch and the entire west.

The government has a small opportunity to provocateur bloodshed, they want to make sure they make good on the opportunity.  Our government seems to like this meme.  Whether its someone in another country that has been labeled an enemy combatant, an American citizen, or a person making claims to property from 1877, result is the same.  All problems look like a nail and lucky them they have a hammer.

The more we see how BLM operates, it seems to followed the organized crime playbook to a T.  With the exception, they have badges and an endless credit card and resources at their disposal.

We're only carrying now because someone finally started covering it.  It took alternative media pushing and leading to get any of the media dinosaurs to at least start covering.  The only things most of our society puts any effort into understanding or caring is about gadgets and everything celebrity or sports.

SPLC has now labeled Cliven Bundy under its hatewatch banner and labeled with terms of extremist, right wing fringe radical right, even domestic terrorist has been tossed in for good measure.

Why does the BLM need armed agents?

Why does it take 200 of them to seize cattle?

Learned yesterday that BLM hired a cowhand contractor from Utah $966,000 for a six week operation to round up the Bundy cattle. BLM had planned to transport the cattle to Utah and sell them at auction.

The state of Utah wasn't allowing or permitting (love the irony here) the BLM to transport nor the sell the cattle to Utah auction.

The figure being tossed around now is that BLM has put about $3 million into the operation to this point.

There are rules and regulations about shipping cattle across state lines to sell. I guess the BLM thought they were above those laws too.

Also, according to people on the ground there, several of the armed agents were telling reporters they would not open fire on their fellow Americans, no matter what orders they were given.

Here are a few different ideas,points, views in no order.

-who "owned" the grazing land first, Bundy family or US government?

-doesn't matter when the BLM was created, they were given the duty to over see US lands. Tomorrow the laws could be re-written and the FBI could be put in charge.

-most on here agree the US government needs to be more fiscally responsible. Severance taxes are levied on those removing minerals/soils from lands to local governments. We expect the US government to charge appropriate severance taxes and fees on mining/drilling/timber operations. The public lands can/should be viewed as a income source for the government. It is about ROI.

-Has a business plan been submitted by the solar company showing how much they will pay annually in fees?

-If the government sold that land through auction, which they've done in the past, but the Bundys were not aware the new owners could evict them immediately. The Bundys admit they don't have a grazing contract.

I worked with guys who went out west for big game hunts. Payed hundreds of $ for state/federal fees and licenses. Hundreds to thousands of $ in travel/lodging. Given current maps and coordinates only to be chased off federal land by armed ranchers claiming it as "their" property.

Do I completely trust our government, no but even though I don't agree on the current iteration of income tax I can't just quit paying it for 20 years and not expect SOMETHING to happen.

Blog rant   , off.

Diesel Dan wrote:

joemac wrote:

In 1993 the Bundy's refused to pay the higher yet again grazing fees.

You give our government too much credit if you think they have been working on a 20 yr solar program.

What do you think happens if I don't pay the proper ORV fees at the state and federal parks?
Doesn't matter if I don't agree with the pricing.

Yep, the solar project is a titillating distraction from a deadbeat not paying his bills.

This is not about grazing fees.  Or someone not paying taxes.  Look to what the government is doing or has plans to do for their real motive.

There was 53 ranchers using this land.  BLM made grazing fees cost prohibitive to have a desired outcome so that ranchers closed down or vacated.

The grazing issue is used as the public distraction while government operates its own agenda selling our country out to the Chinese.

Let's look into BLM and what the motives are.

Harry Reid, US Senate majority leader, Harry's son Roy as council for ENN, and former Reid staffer Neil Kronze Director of Operations for BLM oversaw the sale of 9000 acre plot of federal land with two appraisals, one at $29.6 million and the other at $38.6 million.  The sale was approved for $4.5 million to Chinese firm ENN for a solar power project.  Government is absorbing at least a $25.1 million dollar loss on the land alone.   ENN also had demands Clark county provide an energy company that will buy the power produced at the facility.  No energy company had signed up from everything I can find.

BLM's own documents, now removed from their site, and now removed from Google's cache, clearly outline the reasons government desires Bundy gone.

Government encroaching and taking over land and property, selling our land, our assets, our infrastructure to foreigners for benefiting their own pockets.  But yea BLM has only spent $3 million in an attempting to remove Bundy's ranch over grazing liabilities of $1 million.  Sure thing. As has been pointed out none of the fees paid were being used for improvements to the land. Just as with gas taxes. Private toll roads are everywhere. Gas taxes haven't gone away. These gasoline taxes were originally suppose to be used for road infrastructure. Not anymore, their used to fund other boondoggles.

http://patriotsbillboard.org/bundy-ranch-valued-at-29-6-38-6-million-harry-reid-his-son-had-pushed-county-to-sell-to-chinese-company-for-4-5-million-for-their-solar-plant-sitting-on-land-used-by-bundy/

The assertion that paying taxes for mining mining or using natural land resources upside down. Government didn't create any minerals, resources. Yet it claims by its self ownership and levies tax against it. Just like the "Global Warming" boondoggle. Paying taxes on CO2 emissions to a government somehow mitigates or resolves global warming, or is it climate change, possibly the polar vortex too. Government is the best magic show in the world.

Diesel Dan wrote:

-doesn't matter when the BLM was created, they were given the duty to over see US lands. Tomorrow the laws could be re-written and the FBI could be put in charge.

Sure it does matter. Who gave BLM the authority? Where did the authority originate? People voted for this, no. People's representatives voted and passed legislation authorizing this? No. The BLM is a fully self sufficient government body with no oversight and no representation by the people. It makes up wherever rules, rates, and regulations it wants to impose.

I get two things from all this.

1)No matter who is to blame or what side of the issue you find yourself on the government is far too big and overreaching.

2)The people of this country still have the ability to stand up to the government. Though when this is over it may still end up being futile.