boedicca
Uppity Water Nymph from the Land of Funk
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,734
- 24,709
- 2,290
Federal Government Caves to Right Wing Terrorists At Bundy Ranch
- Thread starter Sallow
- Start date
HenryBHough
Diamond Member
The2ndAmendment
Gold Member
What, he was a Democrat who ran for office as a Democrat. He can't be a white supremacist since Democrats aren't racist, they are immaculate and pure of sin.
HenryBHough
Diamond Member
Sadly, no such a thing as a "sarcastic font" 'cause in the absence of same a hundred liberals are preening proudly 'bout wot you just said!
Dot Com
Nullius in verba
I hate terrists. ESPECIALLY of the rw (conservative) types.
To everyone that is upset about Mr. Bundy's "free grazing" and "owing money", please do a bit of research.
Mr. Bundy's family, along with many others, settled in the area in the late 1800's. His family had grazing rights, that they paid for, granted by the Federal Government on the public land. He did pay the fees and was willing to continue paying the fees. It is not about him not wanting to pay for grazing.
In the early 90's an outside interest (Environmentalists) managed to get the area designated as a habitat for the Desert Tortoise and severe limitations were placed on the amount of cattle that were allowed to graze. The fees are charged per cow. The limit placed on Mr. Bundy was 150 cattle vs the previous number of over 300. Many of the ranchers in the area could not drop their herds that low so they went out of business and their grazing rights ended up being retired (no one could use them for any amount of cattle). Mr. Bundy did NOT give in.
Mr. Bundy could not pay the fees after the limitation because the Government would not allow him to pay for more than 150 cows and he could not pay for only 150 without committing fraud. So he couldn't pay the fees while attempting to fight the limits in court. In 1998 his grazing right was completely removed, so he could not pay for the cattle that were grazing even if he tried. He offered and attempted to pay Clark County, Nevada but they could not accept the money. He wanted to pay and tried to pay. He was not "freeloading" or trying to get away without paying.
The government is attempting to claim that they were confiscating cattle to cover his "fees" that were not paid for 20 years. This is a lie. There was no "fee" to pay after 1998 because the government no longer gave him the option to pay a "fee". (The math on actual "fees" is simple. It is less than $1.50 per cow per month. Even at 1000 cattle, more than he had much of the time, it would only amount to $360,000 ( Cows * $1.5 * 12 months * 20 years))
Due to the other ranchers leaving, the total number of cattle in the area is far less than what it would have been if they had all stayed and followed the limitations. This would imply that the number of cattle left is fine for the tortoise. That means that there is no reason to not allow Mr. Bundy to continue ranching and paying the fee for grazing rights. Instead, the special interests have continued to pressure the government to get every last cow out of the area. The government was forced into taking action that it has tried not to take for 20 years. The fight was won, but it is still being fought for some reason.
Like him or dislike him, like the cheap grazing fees or dislike the cheap grazing fees, at least try to see what actually happened to trigger this situation. Mr. Bundy was not trying to get out of paying his part of the deal. An outside interest got the deal changed and Mr. Bundy did not want to trade his heritage, everything he owned, and his children's future for a tortoise.
Mr. Bundy's family, along with many others, settled in the area in the late 1800's. His family had grazing rights, that they paid for, granted by the Federal Government on the public land. He did pay the fees and was willing to continue paying the fees. It is not about him not wanting to pay for grazing.
In the early 90's an outside interest (Environmentalists) managed to get the area designated as a habitat for the Desert Tortoise and severe limitations were placed on the amount of cattle that were allowed to graze. The fees are charged per cow. The limit placed on Mr. Bundy was 150 cattle vs the previous number of over 300. Many of the ranchers in the area could not drop their herds that low so they went out of business and their grazing rights ended up being retired (no one could use them for any amount of cattle). Mr. Bundy did NOT give in.
Mr. Bundy could not pay the fees after the limitation because the Government would not allow him to pay for more than 150 cows and he could not pay for only 150 without committing fraud. So he couldn't pay the fees while attempting to fight the limits in court. In 1998 his grazing right was completely removed, so he could not pay for the cattle that were grazing even if he tried. He offered and attempted to pay Clark County, Nevada but they could not accept the money. He wanted to pay and tried to pay. He was not "freeloading" or trying to get away without paying.
The government is attempting to claim that they were confiscating cattle to cover his "fees" that were not paid for 20 years. This is a lie. There was no "fee" to pay after 1998 because the government no longer gave him the option to pay a "fee". (The math on actual "fees" is simple. It is less than $1.50 per cow per month. Even at 1000 cattle, more than he had much of the time, it would only amount to $360,000 ( Cows * $1.5 * 12 months * 20 years))
Due to the other ranchers leaving, the total number of cattle in the area is far less than what it would have been if they had all stayed and followed the limitations. This would imply that the number of cattle left is fine for the tortoise. That means that there is no reason to not allow Mr. Bundy to continue ranching and paying the fee for grazing rights. Instead, the special interests have continued to pressure the government to get every last cow out of the area. The government was forced into taking action that it has tried not to take for 20 years. The fight was won, but it is still being fought for some reason.
Like him or dislike him, like the cheap grazing fees or dislike the cheap grazing fees, at least try to see what actually happened to trigger this situation. Mr. Bundy was not trying to get out of paying his part of the deal. An outside interest got the deal changed and Mr. Bundy did not want to trade his heritage, everything he owned, and his children's future for a tortoise.
Last edited:
HenryBHough
Diamond Member
Is the gubbmint assault on cattle-raising inspired by somebody in the White House trying to you to grill arugula instead of angus?
For, of course, your own good!
For, of course, your own good!
HenryBHough
Diamond Member
bucs90
Gold Member
- Feb 25, 2010
- 26,545
- 6,033
- 280
Kinda like how I walked on the side walk, almost stepped on an ant, then decided not to.
If the government wanted Bundy in custody, and all those militia members neutralized, it would not have been hard. A couple phone calls. They decided the "ant" wasn't going to be harmed on that day.
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
What Law?
By now you’re familiar with the standoff between the federal government, i.e. the Bureau of Land Management, and 67 year-old rancher Cliven Bundy. (If not, check the backstory and my radio interview with him here.) The BLM asserts their power through the expressed desire to protect the endangered desert tortoise, a tortoise so “endangered” that their population can no longer be contained by the refuge constructed for them so the government is closing it and euthanizing over a thousand tortoises. The tortoises, the excuse that BLM has given for violating claims to easements and running all but one lone rancher out of southern Nevada, is doing fine. In fact, the tortoise has lived in harmony with cattle in the Gold Butte, Clark County Nevada for over a hundred years, or as long as Cliven Bundy’s family has lived on the land as ranchers. In fact, the real threat to it is urbanization, not cattle. "
.
It's hard to get a clear picture of Harry's lips because they are always planted on Obama's ass.
Pete7469
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #436
Careful what you wish for..
BLM land is state owned land. It's a state issue. So did you liberals ever wonder wtf the Feds were doing there, or do you think we should just eliminate states rights and hand all power over to the Federal government?
Now before you morons say YES, you might want to consider what Colorado and Washington just voted to legalize, against the laws and wishes of the Federal government.
Leave up to a pea brain liberal to completely miss the point of what is going on. The Feds get away with this, then it's on to Washington and Colorado, and this time it won't be over BLM state owned property.
Some of you liberals can be dumber than dirt.
They're all dumber than dirt, but a few of them are as smart as sand.
Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,872
- 2,040
that is one ugly hateful site folks..Americans against the Tea Party.....they are calling you the American citizens standing up to the government, TERRORIST..
do not go to that site and give it any support...it would be good if it withered on the vine but as we see they have a lot of followers who thinks the same as they do or this wouldn't be on this board
just awful stuff
Last edited:
bucs90
Gold Member
- Feb 25, 2010
- 26,545
- 6,033
- 280
I just went to it and checked it out. I try to get news from a wide range of sources. Fox, MSNBC, WSJ, NYT, Michael Savage. This site will be a new source.
http://aattp.org/
Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,872
- 2,040
whatever blows your skirt up...but you don't mind a citizen rancher and his supporters being called, terrorist and is chiding the Government for backing off their jackboots on the peoples necks...no surprise you'd like the site
Because in Nevada, like many western states, the government did not give up ownership of most of the territory when it became a state. The Government instead chose to "rent" the use of the land to encourage settlers like the Bundy family to set up businesses in order to help grow a populace and economy in a very harsh environment.
"Grazing rights" is not something unique to Mr. Bundy. Many ranchers in the west pay for Grazing rights to land that they cannot purchase.
As far as relying on Government Land, go ahead and check your facts. The Federal Government kept the majority of the land in Nevada. You cannot rely on private land when it is mostly public land. The land was being used as intended and fees were being paid. This situation is not unique to Clark County, ranchers and farmers throughout the west are being forced into similar situations.
My point was not whether "Grazing Rights" should exist or not. My point was to clear up the issue about Mr. Bundy "stealing". Many posts here and on other sites claim anger over his "stealing from the public", without understanding the actual situation. Hopefully, a bit of that anger will fade as the truth is revealed.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Roberts on personal attacks against judges: 'It's got to stop'- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 1
-
I give Al Jazeera credit for publishing this opinion piece: 'The US-Israeli Strategy Against Iran is Working. Here is Why'- Started by DigitalDrifter
- Replies: 5
-
-
