• Nevada Range War revives Sagebrush Rebellion
    47 replies, posted
[quote][t]http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2014/0413-sagebruch-rebellion.jpg/18330106-1-eng-US/0413-sagebruch-rebellion.jpg_full_600.jpg[/t] [I]Kholten Gleave, right, of Utah, pauses for the National Anthem outside of Bunkerville , Nev. while gathering with other supporters of the Bundy family to challenge the Bureau of Land Management on Saturday.[/I] [I]Jason Bean/Las Vegas Review-Journal/AP[/I][/quote] [quote]In the sparse Nevada rangeland this weekend, US western history came alive with a fight over cattle that threatened to turn violent. In the end, federal land managers backed down, giving rancher Cliven Bundy his 400 head of cattle. The cows, which had been rounded up on public land where Mr. Bundy’s herd had grazed for years, represented a classic clash of values: Old West traditions and practices versus New West environmental sensibilities. In Bundy’s case, the story goes back to the 1870s, when his Mormon pioneer ancestors first began ranching on public land, which eventually came under the domain of the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Bundy claims the land is his, although he does not have legal title to it. Many ranchers in the rural West run their cattle on federal land, paying regular grazing fees that are based on cow-calf pairs. Such ranches range from small, family-based part time operations to large corporations based in Los Angeles and elsewhere. Bundy had refused to pay the fee, which led to the attempt to seize his cattle. One problem over the years is that some ranchland across the West was over-grazed as cows in what is a dry, fragile ecosystem naturally headed for the water and tasty willows, trampling and fouling streams. This in turn damaged the habitat of fish and other wildlife species – some of which dwindled to dangerously low numbers. In the Bundy story, it was a federally-protected desert tortoise. As relatively new environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act came into play, conflicts over land use arose to the point where so-called “Sagebrush Rebellions” ensued. Mixed into this legal and political fracas – many cases like Bundy’s have ended up in court – were deeper disputes over preserving the “customs and culture” of the Old West in the face of New West modern development (vacation homes, sometimes known dismissively as “ranchettes”), recreational activity, and especially environmental protection. The stories of conflict – and in some places resolution – often included mixed interests. Some ranchers practice “holistic management” – cowboys on horseback or riding all-terrain vehicles rotating their cattle very frequently to mimic the movement of grazing wildlife stalked by predators in Africa. (The theory was developed by Alan Savory, a big game manager from Zimbabwe.) Advocates say regular, brief encounters with the hooves and teeth of cattle stimulates the soil and plant growth while preventing total trashing of the small and fragile plants that constitute the dry ecosystem found across the West’s Great Basin.[/quote] [url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0413/Nevada-range-fight-revives-Sagebrush-Rebellion]Christian Science Monitor[/url]
The reason why it caused such a hullabaloo, was the fact that they basically [B][I]mobilized[/I][/B] the FBI/CIA/SWAT to...make a guy pay fines? This screams of Waco and Ruby Ridge
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;44563482]The reason why it caused such a hullabaloo, was the fact that they basically [B][I]mobilized[/I][/B] the FBI/CIA/SWAT to...make a guy pay fines? This screams of Waco and Ruby Ridge[/QUOTE] Because the dude was insane and believes the government isnt a real thing, and the swarms of rednecks who think the government just hates him for no reason.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;44563482]basically [B][I]mobilized[/I][/B] the FBI/CIA/SWAT to...make a guy pay fines? This screams of Waco and Ruby Ridge[/QUOTE] :tinfoil: As far as I'm aware, the only federal agency involved was the Bureau of Land Management. [QUOTE=CSM]The cows, which had been rounded up on public land where Mr. Bundy’s herd had grazed for years, represented a classic clash of values: [B]Old West traditions and practices versus New West environmental sensibilities[/B].[/QUOTE] If by 'old west practices' you mean refusing to pay the same fee everyone else pays to graze on federal land. Cliven Bundy is a craven, right wing dipshit who hides behind [URL="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/"]one of the worst states right argument of all time[/URL] just so he can carry not paying the same fee as every other rancher. In other words, he's a moocher.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;44563482]The reason why it caused such a hullabaloo, was the fact that they basically [B][I]mobilized[/I][/B] the FBI/CIA/SWAT to...make a guy pay fines? This screams of Waco and Ruby Ridge[/QUOTE] That's what happens when you encourage people to come help you "defend" land that you don't even own. I wish these people would get this passionate about something that isn't fucking retarded.
[QUOTE=Srillo;44564133]just so he can carry not paying the same fee as every other rancher.[/QUOTE] According to the BLM, the grazing fee is $1.35 per cow(and her calf) per MONTH. Assuming he has no calfs, and he pays $1.35/month on each of his roughly 1,000 cows, he would owe the BLM roughly $324,000. If his "bill" is over $1,000,000 as the BLM claims, that means the AUM rate they are charging him is at least $4.17, much higher than what they are charging other ranchers. $16,200 per year V.S. $50,040 per year. So no, they aren't charging him the same as all of the other ranchers.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44566342]According to the BLM, the grazing fee is $1.35 per cow(and her calf) per MONTH. Assuming he has no calfs, and he pays $1.35/month on each of his roughly 1,000 cows, he would owe the BLM roughly $324,000. If his "bill" is over $1,000,000 as the BLM claims, that means the AUM rate they are charging him is at least $4.17, much higher than what they are charging other ranchers. $16,200 per year V.S. $50,040 per year. So no, they aren't charging him the same as all of the other ranchers.[/QUOTE] Have you read through every court decision that he's lost? I'm sure he's been slapped with legal penalties and lawyer's fees. I do not, however, know if that specifically factors into the number being presented by BLM. On the other hand, penalties and interest could be levied by BLM as prior attempts to get him to pay, prior to involving the courts and escalating, as well. I'm again speculating, as I'm not an expert in BLM's complete list of powers and responsibilities. If the legit per-head grazing fee the BLM billed him for is $4 something, and then the actual costs involved in the fight [I]after[/I] the fees started piling up, including all punitive extras, is separate and not included, and he's [I]supposed[/I] to be charged $1.35, then I agree that that's bullshit. I do not agree with how the situation has been handled, on either side as it goes on and on, but such a high disparity for arbitrary reasons would be total BS. This story has reached the point of turning into a States' Rights battle-lines version of He Said-She Said, except with guns being carried.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44566421]Have you read through every court decision that he's lost? I'm sure he's been slapped with legal penalties and lawyer's fees. I do not, however, know if that specifically factors into the number being presented by BLM. On the other hand, penalties and interest could be levied by BLM as prior attempts to get him to pay, prior to involving the courts and escalating, as well. I'm again speculating, as I'm not an expert in BLM's complete list of powers and responsibilities. If the legit per-head grazing fee the BLM billed him for is $4 something, and then the actual costs involved in the fight [I]after[/I] the fees started piling up, including all punitive extras, is separate and not included, and he's [I]supposed[/I] to be charged $1.35, then I agree that that's bullshit. I do not agree with how the situation has been handled, on either side as it goes on and on, but such a high disparity for arbitrary reasons would be total BS. This story has reached the point of turning into a States' Rights battle-lines version of He Said-She Said, except with guns being carried.[/QUOTE] Well it turns out he "owes" $1 million for illegal grazing (1993-present), PLUS the estimated $1 million for them to come remove his cattle. Turns out they didn't raise the price, nor did he just start refusing to pay. They stopped selling permits for the land in 1993 to protect the desert tortise. Not being able to use the grazing land would effectively destroy his ability to raise cattle to support his family.
I understand now that this is the exact reason why the Second Amendment was written. He may not have legal documentation but due to old laws the land is legally his.
[QUOTE=Midas22;44566667] He may not have legal documentation but due to old laws the land is legally his.[/QUOTE] Gonna need a source on that one.
I'm on the rancher/citizens' side on this (you all know that from the past threads), [i]but[/i] if you want to get real, it's neither theirs nor the government's. That land was taken by force from the Native Americans long ago, and they still haven't been properly compensated. (Yeah, yeah, I know, "omg here we go injuns," but you all get my point.)
interesting that the same people who despise the poor for not paying taxes, are willing to take up arms to defend a man who is illegally and explicitly refusing to pay his ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, the American political right
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;44566863]interesting that the same people who despise the poor for not paying taxes, are willing to take up arms to defend a man who is illegally and explicitly refusing to pay his ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, the American political right[/QUOTE] I despise it when people refuse to work at all, leech off of my tax dollars, and act like their rich. I don't despise Bundy because he has worked his entire life, provides cattle, and refuses to be told what to do. The IRS didn't go after him, a different government agency did, so how is this [i]really[/i] a tax issue?
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;44566863]interesting that the same people who despise the poor for not paying taxes, are willing to take up arms to defend a man who is illegally and explicitly refusing to pay his ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, the American political right[/QUOTE] Yeah, not how this happened. Honestly, in my opinion, he shouldn't owe any "grazing fees" for the past 20 years since they prohibited grazing on the land in 1993. How can you owe a fee for a service you quit providing? After 1993, the only option they would have given him would be to fuck off, since even if he tried to apply for a permit for grazing, he would have been denied due to land classification. So in retrospect, while I disapprove of him refusing to move his cattle, I can't fault him for it because I would have done the same if the government came in and tried to take away my means of living.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44567034]Yeah, not how this happened. Honestly, in my opinion, he shouldn't owe any "grazing fees" for the past 20 years since they prohibited grazing on the land in 1993. How can you owe a fee for a service you quit providing? After 1993, the only option they would have given him would be to fuck off, since even if he tried to apply for a permit for grazing, he would have been denied due to land classification. So in retrospect, while I disapprove of him refusing to move his cattle, I can't fault him for it because I would have done the same if the government came in and tried to take away my means of living.[/QUOTE] "Get out, [i]we[/i] need this land to make money now."
[QUOTE=Robman8908;44566916]I despise it when people refuse to work at all, leech off of my tax dollars, and act like their rich. I don't despise Bundy because he has worked his entire life, provides cattle, and refuses to be told what to do. The IRS didn't go after him, a different government agency did, so how is this [i]really[/i] a tax issue?[/QUOTE] the word 'tax' doesn't apply to only the IRS; all it means is a financial charge levied upon an individual by the government. so while this isn't income or sales tax, it is a form of tax because the Bureau of Land Management is requiring him to pay fees to the government which he refuses to do. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44567034]Yeah, not how this happened. Honestly, in my opinion, he shouldn't owe any "grazing fees" for the past 20 years since they prohibited grazing on the land in 1993. How can you owe a fee for a service you quit providing? After 1993, the only option they would have given him would be to fuck off, since even if he tried to apply for a permit for grazing, he would have been denied due to land classification. So in retrospect, while I disapprove of him refusing to move his cattle, I can't fault him for it because I would have done the same if the government came in and tried to take away my means of living.[/QUOTE] except that the BLM has said that most of the other Nevada ranchers aren't illegally grazing their herds on restricted land, and they seem to manage to get along just fine. why is he special? surely he could find a way to make it work, no? he has pretty much outright said that he only continues to graze them there because he refuses to abide by federal laws. they aren't taking away his means of living, he's just protesting the feds because he's an old asshole. [QUOTE=Robman8908;44567052]"Get out, [i]we[/i] need this land to make money now."[/QUOTE] you are aware that all the land (and water, for that matter) in the United States does in fact belong to the government, right? they can take it and do with it what they want (although it's a process and they usually offer you a hefty sum of money to reimburse you for lost property). if the government wasn't allowed to do that, then we would, for example, have a fucking shit amount of infrastructure because everyone would refuse to sell their land to the government to make way for highways, etc.
The wife had an interview on fox news and said that they will pay the state what it asks, just not the federal government, because they believe the state owns the land. And truth be told, [B]UNLESS[/B] Nevada has given the lands within their borders back to the government, it really does, or should, belong to Nevada instead of the government based on the equal footing doctrine. He somewhat does have a case against the government when it comes to ownership of the land. Harry Reid just needs to grow some balls and stand up for Nevada and it's citizens. It's a pretty sad day when your own senator is against you when technically, you are right.
Yeah it seems like the rancher's supporters have their heart in the right place, but this is just a really shitty cause to attach yourself to. By this logic, it's OK for me to rob the federal reserve because I'm a citizen and I have to support my family. He's breaking the law, and refusing to pay what he owes, and is refusing to vacate land he doesn't own. It's a shit situation for him, but this is the fucking way it is. He'll get no sympathy from me as long as he continues to handle this situation in a violent manner, especially by calling for "reinforcements" and "rebellion" What about us in the city who can't find any work other than part-time minimum wage? Is it OK for me to just go take some land from the government and start ranching "to support my family"? or does something about committing the same crime for 20 years make it more OK than that? [quote= silence i kill you]Yeah, not how this happened. Honestly, in my opinion, he shouldn't owe any "grazing fees" for the past 20 years since they prohibited grazing on the land in 1993. How can you owe a fee for a service you quit providing? After 1993, the only option they would have given him would be to fuck off, since even if he tried to apply for a permit for grazing, he would have been denied due to land classification. So in retrospect, while I disapprove of him refusing to move his cattle, I can't fault him for it because I would have done the same if the government came in and tried to take away my means of living.[/quote] And you, of all people, cannot be serious. What this guy is doing is criminal, and he is refusing to pay monies he owes to the government. Why is this OK but people taking assistance while they live in a "work desert" is bad? Is it because this guy is white and middle class or what? An average family of 2 parents and 2 kids who are on food stamps will get between $400 - $600 a month, so we'll just say $6,000 a year. I've seen you say things like those people are parasites ont eh economy and are "living like their rich on your tax money" while this guy fucks the state out of $350,000 a year, and he's just a stand up guy defending his rights? fuck off man, seriously.
I'd call this guy a nutjob sovereign citizen, but at least they consistently pretend government don't exist rather than just the federal.
[QUOTE=Srillo;44564133]If by 'old west practices' you mean refusing to pay the same fee everyone else pays to graze on federal land. Cliven Bundy is a craven, right wing dipshit who hides behind [URL="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/"]one of the worst states right argument of all time[/URL] just so he can carry not paying the same fee as every other rancher. In other words, he's a moocher.[/QUOTE] If there's one thing that Americans hate more than Terrorism, Hitler, and Communism, it's moochin from Uncle Sam.
It's just a bloated bureaucracy trying to sustain itself by fleecing citizens. It has to feed more because it grows larger. It's like an organism.
[QUOTE=Midas22;44566667]I understand now that this is the exact reason why the Second Amendment was written. He may not have legal documentation but due to old laws the land is legally his.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the 2nd amendment was written so that cattle barons can evade taxes by rallying nutjob militiamen to intimidate the government.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44567567]Yeah, the 2nd amendment was written so that cattle barons can evade taxes by rallying nutjob militiamen to intimidate the government.[/QUOTE] What second amendment? The US government doesn't exist, remember?
[QUOTE=frozensoda;44567469]And you, of all people, cannot be serious. What this guy is doing is criminal, and he is refusing to pay monies he owes to the government. Why is this OK but people taking assistance while they live in a "work desert" is bad? Is it because this guy is white and middle class or what? An average family of 2 parents and 2 kids who are on food stamps will get between $400 - $600 a month, so we'll just say $6,000 a year. I've seen you say things like those people are parasites ont eh economy and are "living like their rich on your tax money" while this guy fucks the state out of $350,000 a year, and he's just a stand up guy defending his rights? fuck off man, seriously.[/QUOTE] I agree that he should have to pay the fines and such he owes. That's a no brainer. But I don't see how someone can charge you for a service that is no longer offered. A grazing fee technically wouldn't apply in the area after 1993 because you can't offer a service that's prohibited. A better way for them to classify the monies owed would have been as "trespass fines", in which case he SHOULD pay the full amount. But that's my personal opinion, and I don't hold it as fact. Also, I don't recall generalizing people on assistance like that. I believe you're referring to the time I was trying to explain that I've seen it happen before, and that there are some people who do take advantage of it. Hell, I tried to go to wal-mart the day the EBT cards glitched here in Louisiana. While it is only a small minority of people who do abuse the system, it does still happen, and I was trying to point out that fraud does exist. But let me try to explain why it really is an apples to oranges comparison.... Bundy is grazing cattle on land that is managed using grazing fees by the BLM. His money pays for their management of the land he's using, and nothing else. This affects neither me nor anyone else but Bundy and the BLM. Grazing fees are not used Entitlements are managed using tax money collected from everyone, regardless if you use them or not. Grazing permits = Service funded by fees on the users Entitlements = Services that don't depend on the individual receiving it ever helping fund it, but rather everyone as a collective chipping in and funding it as a whole. Oh, and by the way, he's not fucking the STATE out of the money. He claims he would gladly pay the state. It's the BLM he's fucking out of money.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44567451]The wife had an interview on fox news and said that they will pay the state what it asks, just not the federal government, because they believe the state owns the land. And truth be told, [B]UNLESS[/B] Nevada has given the lands within their borders back to the government, it really does, or should, belong to Nevada instead of the government based on the equal footing doctrine. He somewhat does have a case against the government when it comes to ownership of the land. Harry Reid just needs to grow some balls and stand up for Nevada and it's citizens. It's a pretty sad day when your own senator is against you when technically, you are right.[/QUOTE] it doesn't matter what pleases your special little snowflake beliefs about government, if the federal government didn't own the land then they wouldn't give a shit and it would be solely the state's problem, but they do, which is also why the state isn't fighting the federal government over the land rights. all land ultimately belongs to the federal government, even if states may manage it in most cases. he has absolutely no case against the government which is exactly why Harry Reid doesn't give a fuck about him because no, technically and generally, he is wrong. he's dodging taxes and fines and he owes the American taxpayers millions because of his selfishness, and yet he [B]still[/B] manages to gain romantic sympathy from idiot conservatives. he doesn't have some righteous cause here.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;44563482]The reason why it caused such a hullabaloo, was the fact that they basically [B][I]mobilized[/I][/B] the FBI/CIA/SWAT to...make a guy pay fines? This screams of Waco and Ruby Ridge[/QUOTE] And we forget that our first president personally accompanied the US Army to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;44567644]it doesn't matter what pleases your special little snowflake beliefs about government, if the federal government didn't own the land then they wouldn't give a shit and it would be solely the state's problem, but they do, which is also why the state isn't fighting the federal government over the land rights. all land ultimately belongs to the federal government, even if states may manage it in most cases. he has absolutely no case against the government which is exactly why Harry Reid doesn't give a fuck about him because no, technically and generally, he is wrong. he's dodging taxes and fines and he owes the American taxpayers millions because of his selfishness, and yet he [B]still[/B] manages to gain romantic sympathy from idiot conservatives. he doesn't have some righteous cause here.[/QUOTE] You're partially correct. If Nevada wouldn't have been accepted into the U.S. as a state, the land would have belonged to the federal government. The equal footing doctrine states that all states enter the union on equal footing as the original states in all respects whatsoever. This has been used in the supreme court by numerous states before to assert that they have ownership of the land inside of their borders as long as they are a part of the U.S. It's not really a belief, more of a proven precedent in the supreme court. And none of the money he owes would ever see the "taxpayers". None of those fines/fees go anywhere near the general funds of the U.S. They all stay in the BLM to manage grazing property. He really owes his fellow ranchers those millions. Also, "righteous cause" is a subjective thing. You might not think it's a righteous cause, but to those who want less government interference and more freedom to live life the way they want to, it's a very righteous cause, and an opportunity to express how they feel.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;44567368]you are aware that all the land (and water, for that matter) in the United States does in fact belong to the government, right?[/QUOTE] Map of all [b]federally[/b] owned land in the United States. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/US_federal_land.svg[/img] Yup, looks like all of it.
[QUOTE=Robman8908;44566916]I don't despise Bundy because he has worked his entire life, provides cattle, and refuses to be told what to do.[/QUOTE] Fun fact: Breaking the law and ignoring court orders because you don't recognize the federal government doesn't make you a badass or a role model, it just makes you a criminal.
[QUOTE=Robman8908;44567773]Map of all [B]federally[/B] owned land in the United States. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/US_federal_land.svg[/IMG] Yup, looks like all of it.[/QUOTE] Yeah, really glad you're too dense to read past the bit that you quoted there. That map is all the federally owned and publicly managed land as of this moment, but you're a goddamn moron if you don't think the United States owns everything within its borders. Your property is not yours to do whatever you please with; you must comply with laws because it really belongs to the state, which has the authority to take it from you if deemed totally necessary (and I'll say this again because you didn't read it the first time: this is a process and usually involves you being financially reimbursed for property you have lost). If that was not the case, then anyone who went out west in the 1800s and staked out territory would effectively be their own countries and the U.S. wouldn't have the necessary ability to take land for public use (such as building somewhat important things like highways). oh yeah, and because I don't want you to post something really stupid again, I'll give you this link ahead of time: the ability is called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain]"eminent domain"[/url]. Please read it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.