bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

Accelerator

A lot of that was yesterday. That piece of crap sheriff is a bought and paid for low life gutter snipe. He should be tared and feathered and put on the same rail with Slime-ball Harry Reid and his son Rory.

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

I would drink to that. :thumbup: :thumbup: :-D

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

The guy grazes his cattle on federal land (which as public property belongs to all of us), stop paying his fees to do so, and then complains when the big bad government tries to enforce the regulations? And his supporters who up armed ton stand down law enforcement?

The double standard is amazing. What do you think would happen if native people tried to stand down the feds with arms for the simple purpose of having rights granted to them through treaties honored? What if the Occupy people had shown up armed and tried to stand down law enforcement?

Mike

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


Even so! Don't grazing permits amount to government subsidies to private industry, just like the depletion allowances granted to oil companies, who along with other large corporate interests have moved their operations as much as possible off shore to dodge taxes?

As far as depletion allowances, why shouldn't I be allowed such since each year I work my remaining work life is shorter, just as each barrel of oil removed from an oil field shortens its prospective life.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Various federal welfare programs - subsidies, water and grazing rights, etc. - for those in the beef industry made sense back in the 30s when the diets of a significant portion of the population were protein and fat deficient. The purpose of those welfare programs was always to feed the general population, not merely to subsidize some ranchers.

The US Constitution guarantees the right to assembly and the redress of grievances, as was being exercised by the Occupy protesters. Treaties negotiated with indigenous peoples by the government have the full force of law. Yet attempts to protect and exercise those rights, armed or not, have often been met with violent suppression.

There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing ranchers the right to use public property as they see fit and on their own terms.

Mike

HEART Loc: God's Country - COLORADO

Believe that the dispute isn't about the grazing fees, it has to do with the BLM declaring the tortoise species to be "endangered" and in need of "protecting". The land is still owned by Nevada, not by the feds.

Besides, the feds have been buying up land under Obama, nearly grabbing 1 in 3 acres: http://michellemalkin.com/2010/08/14/how-obama-is-locking-up-our-land/

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Ah, so that is why everyone is stirred up. A tortoise!!

The dispute is absolutely about unpaid grazing fees, and violating BLM land use regulations. If the Park Service wants to protect a habitat to protect a species, or any natural wonder or ecosystem, that is something that we all should, and at one time virtually everyone did, support.

Sometimes the rights of the individual come into conflict with the rights of others. In this case no one's rights are being violated, since there exists no right to use public property for personal benefit on one's own terms.

Cattle can do a tremendous amount of damage. It is entirely appropriate for government to protect natural resources that are owned buy the public.

"Our land" is not being "locked up" by the government. That is illogical and impossible. When Yellowstone Park was set aside, for example, there were people making the same complaint - "the government is gobbling up our land so that we can't develop it and make a profit from it!!!"

I am just going to cite Wikipedia for expediency.

The background -

"A 20-year legal dispute between the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and cattle rancher Cliven Bundy in southeastern Nevada over unpaid grazing fees eventually developed into an armed confrontation between protesters and law enforcement in early April 2014. The dispute began in 1993 when Bundy refused to pay bills to the US government for his cattle grazing on federal lands near Bunkerville, Nevada. Bundy was eventually prohibited from grazing his cattle on the land by an order issued in 1998 by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in United States v. Bundy. After years of repeated violations of multiple court orders, the BLM rounded up Bundy's cattle that were trespassing on the land. A growing incident ensued on the April 10 and 11, 2014 involving sign-carrying protesters and armed supporters of Bundy confronting law enforcement who were protecting the ongoing cattle roundup in the area. On April 11, 2014 the BLM suspended its roundup of the cattle, and the protesters eventually dispersed."

The man had his day in court, to say the least -

"United States v. Bundy "arose out of Bundy’s unauthorized grazing of his livestock on property owned by the United States and administered by the Department of the Interior through the BLM and the National Park Service." According to the case, "On November 3, 1998, the Court issued an order permanently enjoining Bundy from grazing his livestock on the former Bunkerville Allotment ('The Allotment'), and ordering him to remove his livestock no later than November 30, 1998, and pay damages to the United States in the amount of $200 per day per head for any remaining livestock on the allotment after November 30, 1998." The court stated that "[t]he government has shown commendable restraint in allowing this trespass to continue for so long without impounding Bundy’s livestock." On September 17, 1999, after Bundy failed to comply with the court's earlier order(s), the court issued another order directing Bundy to comply with the 1998 permanent injunction and modifying the trespass damages owed."

The legal status of the lands in question -

"Mexico ceded Nevada to the United States as part of the Mexican Cession. Since then, the United States government has continuously owned land in Nevada, which became a state in 1864. In 1933, Edward T. Taylor, a Representative from Colorado, re-introduced a bill to set up the grazing bureau or service in the Department of Interior to administer range lands.[7] The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934[8] (P.L. 73-482) is a United States federal law that regulates grazing on public lands (excluding Alaska) to improve rangeland conditions. However, grazing was never established as a legal right in the U.S.,[9] and the Taylor Grazing Act authorized only the permitted use of lands designated as available for livestock grazing while specifying that grazing permits "convey no right, title, or interest" to such lands.[10] The permittees are required to pay a fee, and the permit cannot exceed ten years but is renewable. Permits can be revoked because of severe drought or other natural disasters that deplete grazing lands. The Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office in 1946 to form the Bureau of Land Management."

More -

"Case studies by Phillip O. Foss on the role of local grazing advisory committees established by the Taylor Grazing Act found that such committees were often dominated by the same ranchers and cattlemen whose activities were supposed to be regulated, raising questions as to whether grazing regulation had been 'captured' by the regulated interests."

Here the tortoise is mentioned, which is no doubt why demagogues can make a big nonsensical issue over this - "the government is taking away our rights to protect some stupid tortoise!!!" - because ignorant and short-sighted people can be manipulated by this sort of story.

"The grazing rules for the land went through changes over the years, including some updated grazing rules in 1993 in the Gold Butte land area of Nevada. Among other issues, the 1993 rules were changed to protect the endangered desert tortoise. Other rules included limits to the number of cattle allowed in certain areas to protect the lands from the severe over-grazing and destruction which was caused by less regulation over the years. Bundy claims land managers changed the terms, citing concern for the desert tortoise, reducing Bundy's 158,666-acre Bunkerville allotment by 90% and capping his allotment to 150 animals. Currently there are no grazing permits on the Bunkerville allotment, and any livestock on that land are there illegally."

It is entirely appropriate and legal for the government to protect the natural environment and it is in everyone's interest, including most importantly future generations, that the government do so.

Mike

Accelerator

Nothing guarantees you the right to have food either. Nothing guarantees GE the right to make 5.1 billion tax free either and then move to China. And that rancher who's family has been there for 140 + years sure has more right to graze his cattle on public land than Harry Reid and his cronies do to turn it into federal land and broker a deal for the use of it with the Chinese. It is public land that you can use or go on belonging to the state of Nevada not the federal government and Harry Reid his son Rory and Warren shit bag Buffett. If they and their ilk get a hold of it no one will be able to use it other then the chinese power company. I suppose you are one of those idiots that also thinks it was ok for BLM to come in there and designate where First Ammendment rights are allowed and where they were not. BLM is land management not law enforcement. When you start setting up snipers against Americans in this country you gotta go no exceptions applying. Where did you migrate from anyway???

Accelerator

That rancher is the last one left out of over 50 that the Government has forced out to make this deal happen. It is documented. The Tortoise is just a front. The BLM is euthanizing hundreds of them because they can't afford to feed them but they could afford to show up with over 80 brand new vehicles, armored vehicles, mercenaries, and helicopters at a cost of over 3 million dollars. There are less of the Tortoises now then there were when there were 50 + ranches running cattle and sheep there all the time. If you wonder why meat and other food cost so much think about 50 + ranches gone. Personally I prefer good natural beef to Monsanto GMO Soy Tofu.

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

We haven't heard the last of this yet. Check this out.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/sheriff-feds-strategize-for-raid-on-ranch/

Accelerator

Harry Reid said "we can't have an American people who just violate the law and then walk away from it it's not over." That from one of the biggest criminal thieving maggots in Washington. He is the one who should be prosecuted for his dealings with the Chinese his thievery and treasonous acts against America and the American people. He and his crooked lawyer (pronounced Liar) son Rory who stand to make millions from this. You don't even have to be fair at research to find the feces ridden hand prints of them and their henchmen all over this. They will start a war and expect our children to fight it for them against us.

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

Yes indeed. They don't call him Dingy Harry for nothing. :evil:

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

There are a lot of serious problems with the way federal agencies are operating, under administrations from both parties. The militarization of the agencies, the swat team mentality, the politicization and corruption...

People from each side of the partisan divide can see the excesses by the "other team," but overlook those of their own. We need to get together on this, because the threat is not from one party or the other.

Mike

bcheary Loc: Jacksonville, FL

I for one would like to see Homeland Security broken up and their power taken away. They are like the Gestapo. Amazing what they can get away with and the power they have over us citizens.