Paying attention ?

tonyb

Any you guys out west paying attention to this dude ?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/us/nevada-rancher-rangers-cattle-showdown/

Seems like things are getting a touch out of hand.

steveinaz

Yep, I've even considered going up there.

F1nut

Good for him, the Fed is completely out of control these days. There's another issue with the EPA telling a family that they have to destroy a pond they built of their land. A pond that was originally built with permission from the Fed. WTF!?!

scottyboy76

will be interesting to find out if he is correct that this is state land, he says he would pay the back fees to them, but the feds arent entitled to them.

BTW, harry reid got his property exempted from this law regarding protection of the desert tortoise, which is why they claimed his cattle had to get off in the first place

westmassguy

Heard it on Rush today. Even the Governor, surprisingly, is getting involved. Absolute shame. The "Free Speech Zone" really got me. On a state highway no less.

westmassguy

scottyboy76 wrote: »

will be interesting to find out if he is correct that this is state land, he says he would pay the back fees to them, but the feds arent entitled to them.

BTW, harry reid got his property exempted from this law regarding protection of the desert tortoise, which is why they claimed his cattle had to get off in the first place

And now the have to kill some of those turtles due to over-population. you can't make this stuff up

WastelandWand'r

Of course, one could always truck the cattle to the federal land east of the Mississippi and let them wander around for a bit. The question is where?
Any volunteers?
Nathan

nooshinjohn

westmassguy wrote: »

And now the have to kill some of those turtles due to over-population. you can't make this stuff up

The turtles are just a cover for some other crap they do out there in the desert. Gotta have someplace to land those UFO's....

steveinaz

westmassguy wrote: »

Heard it on Rush today. Even the Governor, surprisingly, is getting involved. Absolute shame. The "Free Speech Zone" really got me. On a state highway no less.

Yep, what BS. last time I checked, the entire Country was a "Free Speech Zone." Morons.

nooshinjohn

steveinaz wrote: »

Yep, what BS. last time I checked, the entire Country was a "Free Speech Zone." Morons.

Corporate owned forums...


Not so much. I learned that the hard way.

steveinaz

This country is teetering, and it's not going to take much more "jack-booted" thug action before they get a rude answer.

Someone is making the grave error of forgeting who "We the People" are.

steveinaz

If you ever get a chance, take a look at "Range" magazine. Read some the horror stories in there, brought on by the wonderful folks at the EPA.

Soon, your steaks will come from China.

oldmodman

All it takes to settle a problem like this is 200,000 armed, pissed off cowboys.

They know what to do with rustlers. Regardless of what type of costume they are wearing when they are stealing the cattle.

Polkie2009

They should never have taken the man's cattle in the first place. The EPA needs to be shut down. This country has bigger problems than worrying about some desert tortoises. Nature usually find a way to survive, or not. When society places more emphasis on animals over humans, that's completely wrong.

WastelandWand'r

Steveinaz,

If you feel strongly about it, and your post would suggest that you are, lend a hand and volunteer to take in the cattle.

Of course, a thousand head of cattle usually takes thousands and thousands of acres to keep weight on, unless you are supplementing with feed, which is cost prohibitive, hence the use of Federal lands, which is why there are grazing fees in place for such a thing.

Yelling about someone using Federal lands for grazing private cattle without paying their way makes little to no sense to me.

Am I missing something here? Was he not given the last 20 years to pay the fees?
Nathan

nooshinjohn

Polkie2009 wrote: »

They should never have taken the man's cattle in the first place. The EPA needs to be shut down. This country has bigger problems than worrying about some desert tortoises. Nature usually find a way to survive, or not. When society places more emphasis on animals over humans, that's completely wrong.

The EPA was never authorized by Congress in the first place, and therefore is unconstitutional right down to the ink on the Executive order that created it.

Stew

F1nut wrote: »

Good for him, the Fed is completely out of control these days. There's another issue with the EPA telling a family that they have to destroy a pond they built of their land. A pond that was originally built with permission from the Fed. WTF!?!

This one's in my state. EPA is redefining what waters they have control over. Basically, they have authority over "navigable waters." Now they're claiming that navigable waters include even temporary streams after rain/snow melt that feed navigable waters. In other words, everything. Out of hand and scary.

tonyb

WastelandWand'r wrote: »

Yelling about someone using Federal lands for grazing private cattle without paying their way makes little to no sense to me.

Am I missing something here? Was he not given the last 20 years to pay the fees?
Nathan

He does pay grazing fee's....to his county in his state. The confrontational part is federal authority over states. The Bureau of land Management...was formally run by Reid and now by his then assistant. Reid even had the turtle land boundaries changed to accommodate a developer who donated to his campaigns.

Is it about a Tortoise ? No....the area is so overpopulated now the government had to kill about 1000. But they found that giving the OK to solar and wind company's wouldn't effect any turtles. Cows had been living in harmony with them forever. They are more endangered from urban sprawl than cows. Same reasons are used to hold up other projects that don't tickle the fancy of the powers at be, think Keystone. It's about individual property rights, human rights to forage for food on public lands, and government using B.S. agencies to take control of private lands or drive people out. This guy is the last rancher raising cows in the area, everyone else has been driven out. Federal owns over 80% of the land in Nevada...or exercises control over it by one agency or another. In other words, only the Feds can determine what the land can be used for and who it can be sold to and for what purpose. Think of it as redistribution of land.

My fear in this is people will start shooting and end up dead. Maybe that needs to happen for some to wake up, I dunno. Sure hope not though.

BTW...The BLM wants this rancher to reduce his cows from about 1000 down to 100, essentially putting him out of business. They figured his ranch could easily support 100 cows without needing to graze on public lands....public lands within his state that has given him permission to graze of which he does pay a fee, and he has no problem paying that fee.

200 armed guys surrounding this rancher....who's just grazing cattle on public lands, his family has been for 100 years. Pays grazing fee's to his county which the public land is located, with their permission no less....and we need a show of force like this ? Ya think they could put 200 more armed guys on the border ? Nope....this rancher is a criminal in their eyes, not anyone coming in the back door illegally.

tonyb

The Ranchers argument comes down to this...

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

So the powers not granted to the feds....nor rejected by the states, are then reserved to the states. Now, did the state authorize the agency of BLM ? Did the states representatives give the feds those powers to create those agencies by vote....or did the feds just simply create these agencies out of thin air ?

This is basically setting up a show down between federal powers and those reserved to the states by constitutional law. I'm not too hopeful about constitutional law being upheld these days. Seems to me the whole shebang has been compromised. In the end, money, greed, power/control win the day....the rancher ends up dead or closes his doors. Sounds more like Soviet Russia than the USA.

Remember Waco Texas ? Press was all over that....this one is delegated to the deep canyons of the news cycle. I don't think in an election cycle coming up, they want another Waco. I could be wrong though.

WastelandWand'r

Tony,

Thanks for the discussion. My argument is this is on Federal Lands, not state lands nor county. I haven't checked, but I think every state in the union has a mixture of federal, state, county, borough, private, etc., lands and ownership has it's privileges.. The further west you go, the larger amounts of Federal lands you will find. (My state is a great example) Is federal land ownership illegal as well or just the agencies themselves?

If these were state lands that he had been allowing his cattle to graze on for the last 100 years, and the state asked him to cease and desist, I would guess he would be hollering to the fed's for help.

I don't think comparing the argument over land user fees to the Koresh clan is even possible.

Nathan

nooshinjohn

When men stand up and act like they own a pair instead of being sheep, good things happen. The Government backed down... for now.

Polkie2009

tonyb wrote: »

The Ranchers argument comes down to this...

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

So the powers not granted to the feds....nor rejected by the states, are then reserved to the states. Now, did the state authorize the agency of BLM ? Did the states representatives give the feds those powers to create those agencies by vote....or did the feds just simply create these agencies out of thin air ?

This is basically setting up a show down between federal powers and those reserved to the states by constitutional law. I'm not too hopeful about constitutional law being upheld these days. Seems to me the whole shebang has been compromised. In the end, money, greed, power/control win the day....the rancher ends up dead or closes his doors. Sounds more like Soviet Russia than the USA.

Remember Waco Texas ? Press was all over that....this one is delegated to the deep canyons of the news cycle. I don't think in an election cycle coming up, they want another Waco. I could be wrong though.

Great post Tony, there's that pesky old Constitution getting in the way of the liberal agenda again,lol. And isn't there a story out there about Harry Reid's son who is a bigwig with some Chinese solar firm wanting to use the federal land out west there for solar energy or something?

mrbigbluelight

The official Bundy ranch Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch

Live feeds from the standoff (not always on)
http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2014/04/live-link-nevada-patriots-at-the-bundy-ranch-live-video-2451624.html

There are several sites where one can donate towards aiding the folks who are showing up. I'll leave it up to you to explore that avenue of assistance.

It would be my opinion that this story is worth following, and following intensely.
The story behind this episode, especially with Harry Reid and son, is worth following.
Perhaps the main stream media will follow this with the intensity which it deserves. If it does, it will be interesting to see what, if any, slant is put on the story.

Here's the episode as portrayed on Al Jazeera
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/12/nevada-militia-clash.html

My suggestion would be search out and read some "tin foil hat" sites. Feel perfectly free to read and say, "Man, that's a load of horse hockey". Also feel perfectly free to read and say, "Huh ? That can't be right !" and explore some more. I feel that one won't get the real story behind important events from main stream unless it involve the Kharashians or Miley Cirus.

In any event, run hot or run cold, but don't be tepid.

nooshinjohn

looks like the cows are being returned to him as well...

tonyb

WastelandWand'r wrote: »

Tony,

Thanks for the discussion. My argument is this is on Federal Lands, not state lands nor county. I haven't checked, but I think every state in the union has a mixture of federal, state, county, borough, private, etc., lands and ownership has it's privileges.. The further west you go, the larger amounts of Federal lands you will find. (My state is a great example) Is federal land ownership illegal as well or just the agencies themselves?

If these were state lands that he had been allowing his cattle to graze on for the last 100 years, and the state asked him to cease and desist, I would guess he would be hollering to the fed's for help.

I don't think comparing the argument over land user fees to the Koresh clan is even possible.

Nathan

It gets a tad more complicated than whats on the surface. The crux of it all is where does the boundary lines get drawn between federal authority and state authority. Reading the constitution even doesn't draw distinct lines. The Ranchers argument, is that certain federal authority over land use was not granted by the states, particularly...his state, thus is invalid. He makes a good point, and one that could carry itself into many other federal agencies. Which is probably why they dropped this, to keep people from getting rallied behind constitutional behavior.

I'm not saying we don't need a public land management agency, but how many do we need and their given powers over managing those public lands should be voted on, not simply handed to them. They also need to be isolated from outside political interests, influences.... which maybe the states should have their own land management and let the states decide how best to use their own land. I think the closer the agency is to the community that public land is located in, the better off everyone will be and the locals will have more say in that public lands use.

Too often we are told of the creation of another government agency for x purpose, only to find out years later that purpose has been expanded. Usually added on to other bills voted on as an insignificant talking point. Do we really need 3000 page pieces of legislation that nobody reads but votes on anyway ? How much is buried in a bill that size that nobody wants to concern themselves with or discuss out in the open ?

Would this story have a different outcome should it not be an election cycle ? If the good people didn't stand with the rancher ? I suggest it certainly would have gone the other way. When the citizens stand up and open their mouths....that's how you protect your liberties. When you don't....when you don't care one way or another and shut up....that's how you lose liberties. It's not complicated, only requires people to pay attention, become more vocal in the goings on of their country/state/local community.

Glad this ended well and nobody was killed.
I know this is a taboo subject around here and all, but it also lends itself to many other taboo subjects. One being guns. When 200 armed federal agents with guns surround you to force you into submission...over cows no less...think you can deter them with a kitchen knife ? Tickle them with pillow feathers until they go away ? This is the exact reason for 2nd amendment rights and why those in power seek to reduce them or take them away entirely.

westmassguy

As long as the trains run on time, the masses won't notice what's happening in the background, or sometimes right in front of them.

recoveryone

If you look back into our history you will see that during the depression the Feds took over many state lands in the name of Federal parks and preservations. With the true meaning of holding onto future drilling, water ways and other natural resourses in the hands of the feds. By doing this it removes the protection of the 10 Amendment and other state rights. The BLM is fashion after the old days of the Kings lands in England where no one has the right to hunt, fish or farm on the kings land without his permisson.

I never thought I would ever use that information from that Law Enforcement Land Management Class 25 years ago...LOL

Polkie2009

westmassguy wrote: »

As long as the trains run on time, the masses won't notice what's happening in the background, or sometimes right in front of them.

Great point made sir, the sad thing is, most people out there have no idea who or what this pertains to in our world history.

westmassguy

Do they even teach history anymore?

tonyb

westmassguy wrote: »

Do they even teach history anymore?

I think we all know that answer. Maybe some form of revisionist history.

As far as the land ownership goes, it's my understanding the actual land in question is still undecided as to who owns it. The Feds claim they do, but the native indian tribes also do. Which as a caveat to a long ago treaty, they were promised the land would stay theirs. Far be it for me to believe our government wouldn't honor a treaty. lol.

Now here's my question to all you folks.....is there a reason the federal government even needs to own land ? Why can they not simply pay rent to the states ? They pay rent for thousands of buildings and other land uses, why do they need to own such vast acreage of land tracks ? Need an army base in a state, pay rent. I'm sure that state would give a reduced rate with all those jobs a base would bring.

To me, it's all about control...and money. The more land the feds own, the more they control who gets to use it and for what. Which in turn means more political donations to either party. They would also control water and mineral rights to those lands, even lands they don't own by way of the EPA and other agencies. So if you don't like oil drilling, they can say no. If they want to cut water flows off to force private owners out, they can. Don't like anything....they can say no, at least until enough coin is thrown at them to change their minds.

Now, lands such as national forests, or other national treasures should be federally protected lands.....like Yellowstone, Mt. Rushmore, etc., but vast tracks of open lands....desert lands even ? For what ? I think individual states have a better grasp on what to use the land for....or what not to. Plus local citizens would have more a say in those matters. Am I making sense here or am I off my rocker ?

tonyb

I explained my opinion on one side of the case, now lets look at the other.

The issue again comes down to federal authority. Be it right or wrong how the feds got the authority, fact is they have. If they want to make up a reason to boot him off land they own, they can...and they will. No turtle needed. If the Feds claim ownership, can prove ownership legally, then Mr. Bundy is trespassing. You don't get squatter rights no matter how long you've been using that public land. Government lands are immune to such, not yours though in some states, but theirs is.

I listened to an interview with the Rancher on the radio, he explained why he stopped paying his grazing fee's to the Feds. He claimed that paying those fees to the county resulted in his money staying in the state to help other ranchers. While paying to the Feds only enhanced the BLM payroll. He could well be right, but that's no concern of his what they do with the collected fees. When we pay taxes of any kind, we as individuals can't dictate how it's spent. That's what elected officials are for...I think anyway, and they are pretty good at finding ways to spend imho.

In other words, we as citizens can't decide which laws to abide by and which not to...even though government themselves do exactly that. We peasants must obey the 500+ kings...or suffer their wrath. We can hopefully change laws by lobbying...voting, but in rural areas that doesn't hold much water for their concerns.

Range wars have been going on for some time. Private farms in general have been on the endanger species list at a time when we need more of them. That steak, and the quality of that steak doesn't just magically appear at your local grocery store. On one hand, we have government professing the benefits of healthy eating, while on the other they have a boot on the neck of private farmers in favor of those big money donating corporate farms such as Monsanto. On one hand, we have people interested in bring fresh farm goods to inner city folks by way of Farmers Markets, while on the other hand they make farming on the outskirts of major cities nearly impossible. Conflicting messages ? You betcha.

Mr. Bundy seems to have a problem with federal authority in general, can't say I blame him either. But the way to change it has to come by way of the legal system. Many however believe even that is too compromised, and interpretations of the constitution have been twisted to meet agendas. So what then ? Bloodshed ? Obviously a last option nobody wants to use, but personally I see no other way....eventually anyhow.

Mr. Bundy is also claiming to use his natural rights to forage on public lands....which is a whole other subject. We can fill 20 pages on that alone. Forage for personal survival....I can agree with. Forage for profit though is another as Mr. Bundy is doing with a business of cattle. I can see both sides of this and both have some legitimate claims...and some not so much. Sure opens a can of worms though to get people to think about constitutional rights and federal authority.