IGX

As I understand it, he doesn't own the land. If that were the case then he really doesn't have much to stand on. But judging from the all the news this is causing maybe I missed something. Thoughts?

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2 ... clash.html

The showdown between rancher Bundy and U.S. land managers had brought a team of armed federal rangers to Nevada to seize his 1,000 head of cattle in an unusual roundup that has become a flashpoint for anti-government groups, right-wing politicians and gun-rights activists.

The only disturbing aspect of the story is the Federal use of "1st Amendment zones". Another infringement upon our rights, brought to you and me by the asshats in both parties.

On one hand, fuck that cunt for running his cattle on land that isn't his. In the old days he would have had to had a crew or some other rancher would have shot him dead.

On the other hand, the US Gov let him do it for so fucking long, fuck those assholes too. Let him keep his stupid cows and keep him off the public land.

Even better, have some fuckers in black helicopters kill those fucking cows, then drop a bunch of pamphlets talking about "Welcome to the New World Order from your UN Overlords"

LOL!

He had to pay. They raised the price (or started charging for what had been free). He didn't like it. He fought and lost. Court orders were issued. He ignored them. They enforced them. He crowed about the Constitution.

It's about a lot of things, but distilled to its essence, most of the people were there because of resentment against the government's ever expanding involvement in everyone's life. Key players in this drama included desert tortoises, generations of family grazing, state's rights, snipers tracking peaceful protestors, tiny "free speech" zones, and maybe Harry Reid's shenanigans with a Chinese solar company that wanted the land. This map tells a small part of the story.

Consider it an angry white person's million man march (minus one or two people).
As a personal aside, I know someone who was there on Saturday. I haven't spoken to him yet but there's zero doubt that his patriotic fervor culminated in a hangover this morning from his Saturday night in Vegas.

See this link.

This guy obviously has no legal claim here, but the good Dr has a point. The root of this problem is the government's decision to lay claim to the entire West and lease it out (or not). This would not be happening if they had assigned private ownership to the land as they did in the rest of the country. The answer going forward is to sell the land at auction, but that would likely raise objections from both ranchers and environmentalist.

U.S. Senator Harry Reid recognized nine years ago that connections between his official duties and the lobbying activities of his relatives could lead to ethical questions.

In 2003, the Nevada Democrat publicly banned relatives from lobbying him or his staff after newspaper reports showed that Nevada industries and institutions routinely turned to Reid's sons or son-in-law for representation.

Now, questions surrounding family ties are flaring again in Nevada around the Senate majority leader. He and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert.

Reid has been one of the project's most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada. His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/ ... 6D20120831

Allegedly, this deal was over the same land. There's also a potential endangered animal dispute, which the solar plant may or may not cause more damage to than grazing cattle.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:It's about a lot of things, but distilled to its essence, most of the people were there because of resentment against the government's ever expanding involvement in everyone's life.

i question the assertion about the govt's ever-expanding involvement in this particular case. it never was his land, and he has failed to pay for its use. he owes all of us citizens for grazing his cattle on our land.

as for harry reid, bugger him with a cactus if you have the opportunity.

The BLM has from it's inception, leased out public land through the Western States and has generally done a poor job of it.

http://news.yahoo.com/wild-horses-targe ... sAzZ3QtDMD

dead man walking wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:It's about a lot of things, but distilled to its essence, most of the people were there because of resentment against the government's ever expanding involvement in everyone's life.

i question the assertion about the govt's ever-expanding involvement in this particular case. it never was his land, and he has failed to pay for its use. he owes all of us citizens for grazing his cattle on our land.

as for harry reid, bugger him with a cactus if you have the opportunity.

You may be 100% correct factually, but for most of the people there, this was a symbolic event. A time to stand up to the man kind of situation. Very glad to see that cooler heads prevailed and the gov't deserves kudos for that.

Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell equally represent the forces of evil (Well, almost equally; Mitch is only 99% evil)

This is my understanding of the situation:

The land rights were passed down from generation to generation and eventually came to Cliven Bundy. He became frustrated when the money he was paying for grazing rights was being used against himself and other ranchers in the area. There were 53 or 54 other ranchers in the area that sold their grazing rights to the blm because it became cost prohibitive to pay and continue raising cattle due to increasing prices and increased cost of complying with new regulations. Bundy's position seems to be that these rights were obtained from the State of Nevada and not the federal government but at some point he had to start paying the blm instead of the state...or maybe his father did. He offered to pay the state but the state declined. He paid for water and road infastructure over the years. As often seems to be the case in these matters, government is used to clear the way for corporate interests...I have heard both that the land was going to be used for a solar grid and that the blm makes a good deal of money selling the land rights for oil production (and that oil production on the land might be the reason though it seems that cattle and a rig could exist simultaneously but I don't have the knowledge of such things). Bundy claims that he owes 300k, the feds say 1.1m but one article I read stated that the feds had already spent 3m in the operation. If that is true the feds are either acting moronically and brutish or there is a bigger profit in the longer term to be had by outlaying cash now.

The federal gov/blm's side seems to be simply that Bundy didn't pay and therefore should be forced off and his cattle confiscated and sold possibly to pay for monies owed. The question is who is the contract with, the State or the federal goverment? Did Bundy or whomever the contract was with do anything to nullify the contract?

I admire Bundy's courage...not too many people can stand up to the federal goverment and win (tenatively). This situation is probably a prescuror to others yet to come.

Bedlam 0-0-0 wrote:Bundy claims that he owes 300k, the feds say 1.1m but one article I read stated that the feds had already spent 3m in the operation. If that is true the feds are either acting moronically and brutish or there is a bigger profit in the longer term to be had by outlaying cash now.

This logical thinking about budget issues cannot be tolerated. Call the black helicopters!

This thing is getting murkier by the minute. I'm surprised MSM hasn't done something a little more thorough than what little bit that's been done so far.

is there any dispute that bundy owes 20 years of grazing fees?

Yeah, a bunch of crazies think the very notion of federal ownership of land, or fees for using federal land, is unconstitutional.

Sort of like the crazies who think federal courts lack jurisdiction if they have flags with fringe on them in their court rooms.

Or the crazies who think they don't owe taxes because the 16th Amendment was never ratified.

Wait...most of these people are one and the same.

"free man on the land" dumbness.

He's already been to court several times and I don't know what transpired there but he does claim prescriptive rights to the land or perhaps its use which supposedly has been used by his family since 1877. I'm familiar with this term's use in Texas but it may be different in Nevada. Surely this was addressed in court. Maybe some of you legal minds out there can weigh in on this.

The fees seem to be relative to the funding of a desert tortoise sanctuary established in '91. It appears the boundaries of the sanctuary area were "adjusted" as a favor to a developer onto the area the rancher has been using. Interesting they culled half or more of the tortoises when they released them last summer but the rancher is being held accountable for what might happen.

Then there's the solar farm business with Harry Reid and son that just happens to like the rancher's area and more...approx 9,000 acres.

my understanding is he has lost in court and lost again. the blm is enforcing a court order.

he hasn't paid the rent for 20 years. pls tell me why it is wrong to throw his cattle off the land and see if we can find a tenant who will pay.

dead man walking wrote:my understanding is he has lost in court and lost again. the blm is enforcing a court order.

he hasn't paid the rent for 20 years. pls tell me why it is wrong to throw his cattle off the land and see if we can find a tenant who will pay.

He may have the only ranch that's close to the land, other ranchers in the area may already the have rights they need, or the other ranchers in the area may be friends of his.

Shapecharge wrote:He's already been to court several times and I don't know what transpired there but he does claim prescriptive rights to the land or perhaps its use which supposedly has been used by his family since 1877.

There's no such thing as a prescriptive easement against land held by the government. Nullum tempus occurit regi -- Time does not run against the King.

I don't have a very much sympathy for Bundy other than (like some Ranchers) he has to deal with the feds via the BLM. Other than that, he hasn't paid his grazing fees and doesn't have a leg to stand on. I also have an issue with Bundy's round about way of claiming he owns the land because he at one time paid grazing fees. I guess I own the parking garage car space I parked in this morning. I did pay a fee. This will come as a surprise to ACE parking.

The Feds deserve the PR black eye. They got caught acting like the thugs they are. Instead of stealing his livestock and setting up unconstitutional 1st amendment zone. They should have moved the live stock off of BLM land onto Bundy's property. Then they should have placed a lien against his property for the fees. Instead they used the force of government to steal Bundy's property and trampled all over the 1st amendment.

The answer to almost all of these issues is what pinky suggested; a massive sell off of public lands in the West. Or reintroduce homesteading; live on and improve the land for a fixed period of time in order to have title transferred to you.

dead man walking wrote:is there any dispute that bundy owes 20 years of grazing fees?

Why do you hate the second amendment?

http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4weoG__0fE[/youtube]

Phaedrus wrote:

dead man walking wrote:is there any dispute that bundy owes 20 years of grazing fees?

Why do you hate the second amendment?

does the 2d amendment provide special protection to deadbeats?