masterrig 1 #201 April 15, 2014 GeorgiaDon******QuoteNo, I'm not questioning why they didn't use force. I'm thinking they could've used the courts a little more than they did. After 20 years, at some point you have to enforce the law. Do I think they needed to show up with an Army? Absolutely not. But nice letters didn't seem to be doing the trick. A site visit was in order. Earlier in this thread, I suggested a visit from the feds... not an army but a couple agents but that was ruled out as being too costly. ChuckWhat do you think a "nice little face-to-face" would have accomplished that 20 years of litigation didn't? It's not as if this guy had no idea anything was amiss until the BLM started to remove his cattle. He's been in "fuck you" mode for 20 years. Bundy is now claiming effective ownership of a huge swath of public land. His cattle are grazing through a large part of Lake Mead National Recreational Area and the Valley of Fire State Park. The situation is not much different from a mining company claiming that they don't recognize the United States Government, and then opening an open pit mine in the middle of Big Bend National Park. I'll admit that this case has a certain resonance with me. When I lived in Arizona, I was very frustrated with ranchers who closed off BLM land and denied everyone else their legal right to access that public land for hiking and camping. I ran into this at a number of places in both Arizona and southern New Mexico. For the price of a grazing permit, these ranchers got (well, took) what amounted to personal ownership of huge tracts of land, including in some cases entire mountain ranges. BLM officials just referred me to local law enforcement. Appeals to local law enforcement went nowhere, as they either were friendly with the rancher or decided it wasn't something they wanted to get mixed up in. Don What would you suggest... they should've sent troops in the same day they mailed the first letter? Also, Ranchers here have had problems with 'hikers' breaking down fences and trespassing just because they felt they had a right to. A lot depends on the reading of the lease. In this case, the rancher states that the grazing land in question is owned by the State of Nevada and that is who he answers to. Both sides have screwed-up in the handling of this matter. Now, just how do you suppose they fix it? Shoot the rancher? They already tried to steal his cattle and sent armed troops. This whole thing has gotten way out of line. Both sides need to fix it... shit or get off the pot. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #202 April 15, 2014 QuoteWhat would you suggest... they should've sent troops in the same day they mailed the first letter? Also, Ranchers here have had problems with 'hikers' breaking down fences and trespassing just because they felt they had a right to. A lot depends on the reading of the lease. In this case, the rancher states that the grazing land in question is owned by the State of Nevada and that is who he answers to. Both sides have screwed-up in the handling of this matter. Now, just how do you suppose they fix it? Shoot the rancher? They already tried to steal his cattle and sent armed troops. This whole thing has gotten way out of line. Both sides need to fix it... shit or get off the pot. Chuck My understanding of Federal lands like the BLM or USFS or god forbid the F#$%@# PARK service( do not mess with the NPS pet rocks or you are in huge trouble) watches over for ALL Americans is it may exist within state boundries but make no mistake.. it was never sold off to individuals or turned over to the states nor was it put into private handsand was homesteaded or deeded.. it is not yours. If it is federal land that holds minerals... you can make a claim on a few acres but there is a whole bunch of regs and hoops you have to jump thru and "produce" and pay royalties on. ( Been there and done that) alot of those laws were changed back in the 1970's which made it even more restrictive and then Saint Ronald came along and made the executive order with the Pay to Play on federal lands to graze there. Slick Willie then upped the game and got even more into that game on park lands... with user fees there for those who wanted to even take a peek and those public lands. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #203 April 15, 2014 QuoteWhat would you suggest... they should've sent troops in the same day they mailed the first letter?Where'd you get that from? You're the one who has been saying they shouldn't have let it go 20 years in the courts. QuoteRanchers here have had problems with 'hikers' breaking down fences and trespassing just because they felt they had a right toIf it's publicly owned land I do have a right access. I always had current land ownership maps. I knew where the boundary was between privately owned tracts and BLM or National Forest land. When I talked to the ranchers (as I always did, to let them know what I was up to) I made it clear that I would stay well clear of any livestock (don't want to mess with them anyway) and close any gates behind me etc. One fellow told me "if you cross that gate nobody will ever find your body". Just to be clear, most of the time ranchers were friendly and cooperative, and appreciated that I stopped to let them know who I was and what I would be doing. There were just a few that had the bad attitude. Quote In this case, the rancher states that the grazing land in question is owned by the State of Nevada and that is who he answers to.So what? That argument was considered and rejected by both Federal and Nevada courts. The guy may believe whatever he wants to, but the courts say he is wrong. He is also a liar: he claims he will follow Nevada law, but then he rejects the authority of the Nevada court as well. He's just determined to do whatever the hell he wants. Quote Both sides need to fix it... shit or get off the pot. The problem with that is that it assumes both sides want to fix it. What do you do when one side (the rancher in this case) has no interest in solving the problem, because they are profiting by allowing it to continue? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #204 April 15, 2014 AmazonQuoteWhat would you suggest... they should've sent troops in the same day they mailed the first letter? Also, Ranchers here have had problems with 'hikers' breaking down fences and trespassing just because they felt they had a right to. A lot depends on the reading of the lease. In this case, the rancher states that the grazing land in question is owned by the State of Nevada and that is who he answers to. Both sides have screwed-up in the handling of this matter. Now, just how do you suppose they fix it? Shoot the rancher? They already tried to steal his cattle and sent armed troops. This whole thing has gotten way out of line. Both sides need to fix it... shit or get off the pot. Chuck My understanding of Federal lands like the BLM or USFS or god forbid the F#$%@# PARK service( do not mess with the NPS pet rocks or you are in huge trouble) watches over for ALL Americans is it may exist within state boundries but make no mistake.. it was never sold off to individuals or turned over to the states nor was it put into private handsand was homesteaded or deeded.. it is not yours. If it is federal land that holds minerals... you can make a claim on a few acres but there is a whole bunch of regs and hoops you have to jump thru and "produce" and pay royalties on. ( Been there and done that) alot of those laws were changed back in the 1970's which made it even more restrictive and then Saint Ronald came along and made the executive order with the Pay to Play on federal lands to graze there. Slick Willie then upped the game and got even more into that game on park lands... with user fees there for those who wanted to even take a peek and those public lands. Thank you for posting that. Enlightening! I knew that when it came to the govt. and federal lands and all, there were hoops to jump through. I have also been of the understanding that federal lands were 'leased' for grazing by ranchers. I get the distinct impression, when dealing with the government in these regards, it is confusing, frustrating and complicated. They just won't make things easy, will they? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zoobrothertom 5 #205 April 15, 2014 Hi, jclalor. Not picking on you but wanted to explore the phrase below. It looks like Bundy is spitting in the eyes of all the ranchers who pay their grazing fees. Some of the folks commenting may have missed a bit of the history. There were over 50 ranches grazing on this land before it became BLM land. Now there is only one ranch remaining. Did we miss something here.....? Is there a correlation between BLM management and those missing ranchers? Millions in fees to protect a turtle from cattle? 150 years of ranching destroyed how? Heavy handed tactics or a true interest in maintaining harmony? The rancher in question paid for years and then stops? Maybe because the fees collected weren't being used on the land grazed? Other reasons? Just wondering ....____________________________________ I'm back in the USA!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #206 April 15, 2014 GeorgiaDonQuoteWhat would you suggest... they should've sent troops in the same day they mailed the first letter?Where'd you get that from? You're the one who has been saying they shouldn't have let it go 20 years in the courts. QuoteRanchers here have had problems with 'hikers' breaking down fences and trespassing just because they felt they had a right toIf it's publicly owned land I do have a right access. I always had current land ownership maps. I knew where the boundary was between privately owned tracts and BLM or National Forest land. When I talked to the ranchers (as I always did, to let them know what I was up to) I made it clear that I would stay well clear of any livestock (don't want to mess with them anyway) and close any gates behind me etc. One fellow told me "if you cross that gate nobody will ever find your body". Just to be clear, most of the time ranchers were friendly and cooperative, and appreciated that I stopped to let them know who I was and what I would be doing. There were just a few that had the bad attitude. Quote In this case, the rancher states that the grazing land in question is owned by the State of Nevada and that is who he answers to.So what? That argument was considered and rejected by both Federal and Nevada courts. The guy may believe whatever he wants to, but the courts say he is wrong. He is also a liar: he claims he will follow Nevada law, but then he rejects the authority of the Nevada court as well. He's just determined to do whatever the hell he wants. Quote Both sides need to fix it... shit or get off the pot. The problem with that is that it assumes both sides want to fix it. What do you do when one side (the rancher in this case) has no interest in solving the problem, because they are profiting by allowing it to continue? Don I was simply asking a question. Good! You did the right thin... you're an exception. You understand the rules of gates and so-on. That's great! To reiterate, BOTH SIDES screwed-up, both sides are being hard headed. The rancher believes he is right, the government believes they are right. Both sides have a problem. I wish them good luck. I'd just like to see no blood-shed. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #207 April 15, 2014 zoobrothertomHi, jclalor. Not picking on you but wanted to explore the phrase below. It looks like Bundy is spitting in the eyes of all the ranchers who pay their grazing fees. Some of the folks commenting may have missed a bit of the history. There were over 50 ranches grazing on this land before it became BLM land. Now there is only one ranch remaining. Did we miss something here.....? Is there a correlation between BLM management and those missing ranchers? Millions in fees to protect a turtle from cattle? 150 years of ranching destroyed how? Heavy handed tactics or a true interest in maintaining harmony? The rancher in question paid for years and then stops? Maybe because the fees collected weren't being used on the land grazed? Other reasons? Just wondering .... Saint Ronald edict by EXECUTIVE ORDER 12548 was in 1986.. he stopped paying in 1993.. Times change.. and public land is just that PUBLIC.. administered for all Americans.. not for just one douche doing VERY well by ripping the rest of us off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rick 67 #208 April 15, 2014 zoobrothertomHi, jclalor. Not picking on you but wanted to explore the phrase below. It looks like Bundy is spitting in the eyes of all the ranchers who pay their grazing fees. Some of the folks commenting may have missed a bit of the history. There were over 50 ranches grazing on this land before it became BLM land. Now there is only one ranch remaining. Did we miss something here.....? Is there a correlation between BLM management and those missing ranchers? Millions in fees to protect a turtle from cattle? 150 years of ranching destroyed how? Heavy handed tactics or a true interest in maintaining harmony? The rancher in question paid for years and then stops? Maybe because the fees collected weren't being used on the land grazed? Other reasons? Just wondering .... I don't see what difference it makes where the fees are being used. If you stop paying rent you don't get to use the facilities anymore.You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kawisixer01 0 #209 April 15, 2014 Amazon***Hi, jclalor. Not picking on you but wanted to explore the phrase below. It looks like Bundy is spitting in the eyes of all the ranchers who pay their grazing fees. Some of the folks commenting may have missed a bit of the history. There were over 50 ranches grazing on this land before it became BLM land. Now there is only one ranch remaining. Did we miss something here.....? Is there a correlation between BLM management and those missing ranchers? Millions in fees to protect a turtle from cattle? 150 years of ranching destroyed how? Heavy handed tactics or a true interest in maintaining harmony? The rancher in question paid for years and then stops? Maybe because the fees collected weren't being used on the land grazed? Other reasons? Just wondering .... Saint Ronald edict by EXECUTIVE ORDER 12548 was in 1986.. he stopped paying in 1993.. Times change.. and public land is just that PUBLIC.. administered for all Americans.. not for just one douche doing VERY well by ripping the rest of us off. Tell me how you feel about a ski resort being operated on public land? Do you feel entitled to not have to pay $60+ a day to use that public land? If you want to get into ripping off people for the use of "their" land I'm not sure that you could find a better example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #210 April 15, 2014 QuoteTell me how you feel about a ski resort being operated on public land? Do you feel entitled to not have to pay $60+ a day to use that public land? If you want to get into ripping off people for the use of "their" land I'm not sure that you could find a better example. Do you have any actual examples of ski resorts being built on public land without having to pay "rent"? I have always assumed that a portion of my lift fees went to pay for such access. Similarly, part of my jump ticket cost is for fuel, which includes taxes used to maintain the airport, FAA etc. Also there are different flavors of "public land". There is land under Federal jurisdiction, such as BLM and National Forest land, there is land under State jurisdiction, and there is land owned by municipalities. Each owner is free to make the best use they can of the land under their control, within the scope of any applicable legislation. Mining companies must pay royalties on mineral resources extracted from federal land, for example (though we can debate if those royalties are sufficient). A State or municipality could decide that the economic activity generated by a ski resort brings enough money into a community to justify leasing the land, if they so wished. I would certainly object if somebody decided National Forest land was theirs for the taking, built a ski resort, and told the owner (which ultimately would be the US public) to fuck off or take a bullet. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #211 April 15, 2014 >Tell me how you feel about a ski resort being operated on public land? Do you feel >entitled to not have to pay $60+ a day to use that public land? I don't have to pay $60+ a day to use their land! There's a ski place near where my family lives in NY that has a pretty nice sled hill that the kids like. No charge. But if I want to use their _lifts_ I have to pay. (And they, in turn, have to pay the BLM for use of the land.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #212 April 15, 2014 >It's also not very reasonable to escalate to deadly force over cows and turtles. >Are they worth the deaths of citizens and law officers? Even dumber to escalate over illegal immigrants who are working hard, paying taxes and supporting their families. Yet many people here become VERY offended if you suggest "it's not worth the time and risk to cops to arrest them." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #213 April 15, 2014 Thank God it is not a brown person receiving more than they are owed in food stamps. Welfare is only for the rich."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #214 April 15, 2014 Southern_ManThank God it is not a brown person receiving more than they are owed in food stamps. Welfare is only for the rich. I think, I may have come to a solution to the rancher's and BLM's problem. Since he is the only one grazing cattle on a portion of BLM land and his family has grazed cattle on that land for way long before the existence of the BLM, why couldn't the BLM reach-out an olive branch and 'grandfather' the ranch (rancher). In the grand scheme of things, it isn't that big of a piece of land and it would show the BLM really does have a heart. That would be a 'peaceful' conclusion to the mess and the BLM would come-out looking like good guys. I know, there's some of you out there who only see the money side of things or the fact that is one little piece of earth you can't hike on hike on or run four-wheelers on or whatever but this type of thing has been done before. Maybe not with the BLM but what would it hurt. Sometimes you have to give-up a little pride for a 'peaceful' end to a problem. The rancher could have the BLM folks out for a barbecue say, once a year. Just a thought. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #215 April 15, 2014 Or, here's another idea... He can stop mooching and pay his bills. What you're asking for is like a tenant who is 20 years in arrears on his rent to be "forgiven" for no damn good reason.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #216 April 15, 2014 quadeOr, here's another idea... He can stop mooching and pay his bills. What you're asking for is like a tenant who is 20 years in arrears on his rent to be "forgiven" for no damn good reason. Like I said, it was just a thought! What's the difference in 'forgiving' him his debt and 'forgiving' MILLIONS' of illegal aliens for 'stealing' citizenship in this country? Hmmmmmm...? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #217 April 15, 2014 masterrigLike I said, it was just a thought! What's the difference in 'forgiving' him his debt and 'forgiving' MILLIONS' of illegal aliens for 'stealing' citizenship in this country? As far as I know, they're still undocumented aliens. As far as I know, it's impossible to steal citizenship from the US. There is, in fact, a difference. Have an example of somebody stealing citizenship? Love to see it. Not that it has anything to do with the topic of this thread, so maybe start a new one.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #218 April 15, 2014 >What's the difference in 'forgiving' him his debt and 'forgiving' MILLIONS' of >illegal aliens for 'stealing' citizenship in this country? Hmmmmmm...? If you wanted to propose "forgiving" both groups (and do it through legal channels) that might well work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
okalb 79 #219 April 15, 2014 Fixed it for you. How do you feel about it now? I think, I may have come to a solution to the illegal immigrant and USA's problem. Since they snuck into this country illegally many years ago and many of their family snuck in illegally long before that, why couldn't the USA reach-out an olive branch and 'grandfather' the illegal immigrants in. In the grand scheme of things, it isn't that many people and it would show the USA really does have a heart. That would be a 'peaceful' conclusion to the mess and the USA would come-out looking like good guys. I know, there's some of you out there who only see the money side of things or the fact that is one little piece of earth but this type of thing has been done before. Maybe not with the USA but what would it hurt. Sometimes you have to give-up a little pride for a 'peaceful' end to a problem. The illegal immigrants could have the USA folks out for a taco (just a little joke) say, once a year. Just a thought.Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #220 April 15, 2014 billvon >What's the difference in 'forgiving' him his debt and 'forgiving' MILLIONS' of >illegal aliens for 'stealing' citizenship in this country? Hmmmmmm...? If you wanted to propose "forgiving" both groups (and do it through legal channels) that might well work. Knowing this government, I can just guess who they'd pick first! It wouldn't be that rancher! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #221 April 15, 2014 The USA has been doing it for years. Does the word 'amnesty' ring a bell? You didn't 'fix it for' me you flat-out re-wrote it and it failed to reflect my true feelings. Savvy? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #222 April 15, 2014 >The USA has been doing it for years. Does the word 'amnesty' ring a bell? Agreed - and they've been doing it for this guy for 20 years! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #223 April 15, 2014 billvon >The USA has been doing it for years. Does the word 'amnesty' ring a bell? Agreed - and they've been doing it for this guy for 20 years! Then why, are they pickin' on him? Could it be.... there's just one of him? Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #224 April 15, 2014 >then why, are they pickin' on him? Same reason they keep pickin on the illegal immigrants I guess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #225 April 15, 2014 billvon>then why, are they pickin' on him? Same reason they keep pickin on the illegal immigrants I guess. Just the one's they catch. Those already here are home free. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
