# Beware the land grab



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

http://www.infowars.com/feds-back-down- ... se-cattle/

Every few years the government has to evaluate their land management and open it to public discussion. The last time it happened in North Dakota our western ranchers had a plan they wanted, and the Sierra Club had a plan they wanted. I think the ranchers wanted something like 15 year leases. Their excuse is they needed to know they had the land for that long a period for planning purposes. If they purchase grazing rights they have them until they sell them. The problem with a lease is they could post the land and we could kiss public hunting and multiple use good-bye.

How many of you Remember Reagan's secretary of interior James Watt? I like Reagan, but James Watt was the attorney for the Sagebrush Rebellion. They want the federal land. The latest dust up is with a rancher named Bundy in Nevada. If you watch news at all your up to speed on this.

Anyway, I watched Sean Hannity interview Bundy and I think the guy is a liar. He told Sean it's state land, and Sean kept saying I'm confused. The reason Sean was confused was it isn't state land. This guy is sort of like Gordon Khal because he doesn't believe in federal authority. To him a state is sovereign, and it is to us to, but not in the same radical way.

The land in question was acquired by our federal government from Mexico. Like the Louisiana Purchase it all belonged to our government. Our government after acquiring it started finding ways to develop the country by finding ways to give this land to it's citizens. At a point that stopped. It stopped on land that would not support a capitalist economy. Some of the land that was given away would not support families and they ceased to pay taxes so it went back to the government. Different agencies around the country are in charge of managing that land. Grazing fees are so cheap that it cost more for our government to oversee and manage it than they get for grazing fees.

The land in question in Nevada is federal public land under the management of the Bureau of Land Management. Bundy keeps trying to pay the state, but they will not take the money because they don't own it. It would be like Tom owning land and Dick keeps trying to pay Harry rent for it. Bundy also says he pays taxes on it. You don't pay taxes on land you don't own. Bundy has not paid his grazing fees since 1993 and owes $1.1 million in grazing fees. He should have known that some day this would be settled so if he doesn't have $1.1 million in an escrow account somewhere he never intended to pay and should be in prison with all the other thieves. He didn't steal from the government he stole from his fellow Americans.

None of us conservatives like the huge inefficient government we now have. Perhaps it's not the size of government we dislike, but the way it intrudes into our every day lives more and more every year. Groups like the Sagebrush Rebellion will take advantage of that government dislike. Lets not cut of our nose to spite our face as the old cliché goes. In other words lets not foolishly assume that everything the government does is wrong simply because in some areas like health care the government has become tyrannical. I cherish the ability to take my bow and wonder around the North Dakota Badlands. If this guy in Nevada is successful in ripping off the government we better be prepared for it to happen here also. For myself I vote to keep our public lands for all people for hunting, hiking, bird watching, camping, etc. If everything becomes pay to play where does one who enjoys the outdoors go? We don't all own a section of our own land. Don't forget they want it for pennies on the dollar if not free.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I am very torn on this situation. I feel bad for that rancher, but at the same time, to me it looks like he was just being ignorant.
The government is broke and everything they run always goes broke. They should fix the grazing issue, buy charging enough to make money, and with that surplus of money they should have reinvested it into management practices, buying more land, or helping landowners create more natural habitat for wildlife. But then again, no one in government has any common sense and they know that they can operate in the red because they don't have to answer to anyone.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunt I mostly agree with you. However, I don't see this rancher any different than a guy in a bank with a gun.

First off the land was acquired from Mexico. When we acquired this land we honored Mexican land grants. This guys family has no records from Mexico or the United States hence no legal rights to the land. It's interesting that up until 1993 they paid their grazing fees.

I strongly agree that they should charge enough for this land to pay for the administration of it. They pay something close to $2.50 per AUM (animal unit month) which is a cow calf pair, a horse, or I think five sheep. Bundy says it takes 320 acres to support a cow on this land. So he is paying less than a penny a month per acre. I think it's time to raise that fee. I don't have current cost/rental numbers, but I do remember the numbers for 1988 which is the last records I looked at. (yup some people go nuts when I talk about historic data) However, I don't think the ratio has changed much. The data I am thinking of is for the Forest Service only. In 1988 the government took in $26 million from grazing, and it cost the government $58 million to administer those lands. I talked with a rancher out west who thought for what he paid the government should do a lot more. At the time I worked for dept of Interior and the land is administered by the dept of Agriculture, yet he thought I should personally come out and spray for grasshoppers. I'll bet he complains about his taxes out the other side of his mouth.

I was torn on this story myself, but the futher I looked into it the more strange it looked. Then I watched him lie on the Sean Hannity show. I think he believes that any land inside Nevada that is not private is state land. We all know that isn't true. So the guy has a problem, and it isn't ignorance because he sent the one son to school to become an attorney. The problem is he thinks like Gordon Khal. He has not paid his grazing fees, and Gordon Khal said the government had no authority to tax him so he never paid his taxes. Slight variation of the same rationalization to satisfy greed.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

That's the thing, he is either too ignorant of the situation or too stubborn to acknowledge the situation. I felt bad right away too, until you start looking up the facts.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/nevada_blm_actions_background


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hmmm with no comments is this spam?????


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Your first post is well done, Plainsman! You explained what's going on very well! The land involved is not the Ranchers land, but OUR land! The guy has been " renting" from US for a hundred years, then stopped paying back in 1993! Finally, after it's gone round and rounding the courts forever 20 years, costing us taxpayers tons of money in court and legal costs, the BLM finally decides to do something about it! IMO about time!
So this ******* land stealer ( never mind the so called romance BS of the western rancher, blah blah) now says "I ownthis land," and not surprisingly at tracks a bunch of AR toting goons and militia types looking for any reason to defy any govt thing or rule of law! The classic anti govt thing we see over and over nowadays. 
Sorry, Ranchers out there. This goon will absolutely undoubtedly LOSE, just as he has lost repeatedly in the courts for the past 20 years. Time for the BLM to stop this nonsense whether it call in the army, national guard,etc.
We are a country ruled by LAW, not goons! 
As people who love to use the outdoors, OUR outdoors, we can't let this slide or ultimately we taxpayers will own NO land, and the renter/ squatters will take as much as they can! 
Let the courts decide, Wait a minute .......they already have!!! This guy thinks he doesn't have to follow the law or pay his bills.......


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is my take on it.... He didn't pay rent. Period.

I read the fishing buddy thread.

One person commented that he tried to pay the state or what ever and it was supposed to go to the feds... either way... rent wasn't paid. You can only play ignorance for so long. It looks like he knew where the rent was supposed to go but didn't want it to go there.

Now with the other topic on the fishing buddy thread about playing connect the dots.... ie: Reid, developer, BLM new manager, etc. Yeah I see the connection and one could use that argument. But the main fact... RENT WASN"T PAID.

If you are a land owner and have a tenant not paying rent.... you do something correct??? Same case even when it is the government as the land owner who is owed rent.

Now people will say he did improvements on the land.... OK... good for him. Yet in the agreement did it say he will be compensated for those improvements??? If yes....then take it out of the rent owed... if it doesn't.... I hate to sound harsh... TOUGH SH*T. Because again if you are a land owner or home owner and have tenants go in and improve the land with out written permission or a written agreement on what can and can't be done or who is paying for it.... Then it doesn't matter. that is why there are leases!!!

So again.... I feel sorry for the rancher i truly do. But he didn't hold up his end of the lease which is payment. And playing ignorance on "who to pay" only lasts so long.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I agree, Chuck. No one is trying to say Harry Reid and his family and his buddies isn't a crook in a lot of stuff, but to me it looks pretty straightforward! You agree to rent someplace and in doing so, you agree to pay the rent and abide by the rules. If somebeaurocrat decides to change the rules and you don't like it, then fight it in the courts and/or contact your reps, etc. and if you lose for 20 years, then you've lost! Our legal system might not be judged fairby everyone in the country, but it's still the best one in the world, IMO! 
By trying to fight this with violence snd a bunch of gun toting goons? All that does is destroy your credibility and harms the honest rule following rancher.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I have stated on other sites that I see multiple wrongs in this! From the rancher to the way the Feds reacted, I still feel there where better options to pursue.

In regards to the recent disclosure of Reid's involvement it is not reflective of the claims that Bundy has made. I goggled and read the findings of the courts, in it they stated that Bundy had not provided documentation of his wrongs. The Hage family who where in a similar situation did and have won a judgment for losses, but that is being appealed to the 9th circuit.

So the rancher being wrong does not excuse the excessively heavy handed tactics the Feds used in my opinion, nor do those actions give the protesters the right to make violent threats either. I support the protesters and their right to do so, but peacefully !

To me a lot of this has been blown out of proportion by a media that is long on trying to gather ratings and short on fact checking. A simple search would show that Bundy has lost his claims numerous times for the same reasons.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ron you had a couple of the most reasonable well thought out posts on that thread on fishingbuddy. I think many started to understand, but some don't want to understand. All they know is a rancher is always right, and the government is always wrong and no amount of logic will change that. Some of us have made the mistake that everyone is interested in the truth. :thumb:


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

What gets me is why this thing has been allowed to simmer this long! Court order after court order seems to have been ignored and the court rulings given the BIRD by the stubborn old rancher.
I'd love to rent some pasture land for 20 years and not pay anything , 
So after 20 years and multiple (expensive) court rulings, I wouldn't call the Fed response heavy handed.
Rather, it was WAY past due,!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Been following this on another forum too. Funny how quick the conspiracy theories come up: http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Just another reason to not rent or lease any land owned by the government.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

It is the opinion of many (I feel it is a deluded opinion) that government land is OUR land. In theory this may be true, but I feel the government really doesn't look at it this way. On soooo many fronts the government has dissolved itself from the citizens. The government is not "By the people for the people" it is an entity unto itself. Many of the arms of government (i.e fish and wildlife, epa, bureau of land management, corps of engineers, fbi, cia, bureau of tobacco and firearms, I could go on and on) have powers which often supersede that of which created them and which they are supposed to be a part of. This is just my humble opinion, and in the particular case of this rancher I feel he is bucking the system and taking advantage of it. They did overreact and make the situation worse, however.


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

I had 33 years with the US Forest Service. We were taught there is no Forest Service land only National Forests. Meaning the agency and the government do not own the forests. They belong to the people
Our agency had the privilege and the duty to care for these lands. We were the hired help. In formulating management plans we followed the first "chief"'s admonition of "the greatest good, for the greatest number, in the long run".

The land being grazed belongs to us all. One person is grazing it for free. How does that make you feel?
What if he decided to start logging a forest without paying for the timber?


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

A good read Dick. Always the knee jerk conspiracy theories these days. The Chinese solar plant thing was far further south from Mesquite, heck, down by Laughlin, not to far from our snowbird area, not even within a couple hundred miles of the Bundy thing. And the Chinese pulling out for lack of market for the power was well publicized here in AZ. Whoever started this viral Reid nonsense did it to obscure what really went on withit. The old " throw enough sheet and some of it might stick" trick! Especially with so many wanting to believe anything bad about the Feds. 
If someone wants to demonstrate against the Feds finally taking action, fine! It's a free country. But when a bunch of goons show up with AR's and armed to the teeth, that's serious stuff, and IMO can't be tolerated. It's a free country, the best in the world, but it sure doesn't give anyone the right to threaten others doing their job!


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Sorry if I didn't make it clear in my post. I feel he has been and is in the wrong, and should be made to pay for past grazing fees minus any improvements and not be allowed to lease government land in the future due to his previous infractions.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

There is an in-depth article of the BLM/Bundy timeline from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... overnment/


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

north1 when I started working for the government in 1970 we knew we worked for the taxpayer. I think part of our problem begin with affirmative action. We worked to fast to get women and minorities who had never hunted and everything they knew was from tv or college. College profs are about as liberal as you can get and they create mush-heads who think they have a cause. Yes, some have forgotten who they work for. I had one refuge manager make a statement about not letting people do something to "our refuge". I set that person straight right away and they became a bitter enemy for my last 15 years. Just a liberal nut job was my opinion.

When I stared in 1970 nearly every biologist was an experienced outdoors person. Then we started getting those who actually told us they were offended by us talking about hunting at the lunch table. I suppose I would have made another $20K a year if I didn't speak up so often when I thought things were wrong.

I have talked with some of the Forest Service people in western North Dakota. Their range management people are some of the best you could ask for. I know the ranchers don't like some things, but it's not the employee on the ground out there making the decision, they have to follow federal laws. I am always amazed at some of the things our politicians get away with because they make it look like it's the agencies doing it. When you get to most of the state levels they people are just doing what the presidential appointment to the agency tells them they have to do.

It does bother me that these people will display behavior that endangers our second amendment rights. People like the Unibomber, Gordon Khal, David Koresch etc lend ammunition (pun intended) to those who would attack our second amendment. The Bundy's do not deserve anyones support. No more than the guy sticking up a convenience store. The left calls us radical for defending the second amendment. With an administration like the Obama administration this is a very dangerous time to support those who tarnish the reputation of honest gun owners. We know the AG Holder has no respect for the constitution and hates the second amendment. Our best defense is still our brain, and we need to present ourselves as if we use ours.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

My first introduction at the hypocrisy which can occur with SOME "environmentalists" came in college. Fieldtrip into Canada led by a high ranking official in the sierra club. We were on land owned by the Canadian government and had been given strict instructions on not disturbing anything in the reserve. Long story short I witnessed this individual use his rock hammer to hack a chunk of gold out of a rock face and put it in his pocket. Needless to say it went home with him. Same dip who would drum into us in class how evil farmers were for using chemicals, ranchers were for polluting waters and how government control was the answer to saving the planet. Sad thing is this was prevalent in numerous college classes. Glad it opened my eyes to how powerhungry anyone can become when they feel they know what is in the best interest of others.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

north1 I can't disagree much, but that doesn't justify the thief Bundy. I think we should take the Sierra Club guy and Bundy and throw them in a cell together for a while.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

I don't disagree with you one bit, but that would make too much sense.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have a question for those of you who graze cattle. I was in the Texas Great Bend area this winter and over 100 years ago they grazed it so heavily that much of the area has not recovered and doesn't support grazing today. I watched Bundy on TV say it took 320 acres to support a cow. The first thing that enters my mind is do cows sprint from one grass spear to the next or what? With grass this sparse I think about the energetics and can't understand where the caloric intake would equal the caloric output. It's kind of like fish that are introduced to a lake with a lot of insects in the water but no minnows. The 12 inch fish are fat and healthy, but the 24 inch fish are skinny because of feeding energetics. They can't expend the energy to chase small food objects and grow fat. Wouldn't the same feeding energetics apply to an area that requires 320 acres to feed a cow? That's only two cows per square mile.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

There are different guidelines that the NRCS has for land use and cattle grazing. I cannot find the link, but we have worked with the NRCS with the pastures we use, to utilize maximum grazing efficiency without damaging the land scape. I know that North Dakota and Nevada are completely different area's but they should have some guidelines like what you are wondering about.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

One final comment on this issue. The BLM was shown in court to be acting in a non appropriate manner by Hage Family. This is a matter of public record and one that cannot be denied. I believe that under the current Adm the same types of things likely are taking place. The good that this issue has done is to bring bad behavior to light and we should not forget that and should demand our elected officals seek to stop said practice. It is after all public land with multi use options in place for it. It should be managed for all of those options not one alone.

The actions and course taken by Bundy where wrong choices by him. The BLM acting in bad faith does not permit Bundy to do so as well and I pointed out a wrong does not permit others to act wrongly as well.

I see a whole lot of misinformation and confusion over this subject, there is the issue of the BLM behavior past and current that needs to be addressed. There is the behavior and choices by Bundy that left him holding an empty bag.

There is the actions of Reid and others associated with him in trying to push through a under the table deal. Do not know if any laws where broken or ethics violated but that is in itself another matter as well.

Trying to mix all of them into one and justify something is how and why we are at the point we are. Everyone should be on the side of ranchers who have been wronged and should be supportive of their right to seek damages e.g. Hage Family, I hope they win at the higher court during appeal.

So to be straight up direct, this is a mess that needs fixing so things like this do not occur in other areas and corrections to existing problems that have been created.

Just step back and look at these events and issues without bias, I think when one does that, clarity of the wrongs all the way around become very clear. Look at it with bias either side and you will only see what you want to see.

read this link it provides a good time line of events and background history as well as court rulings. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04 ... ituation/#

This is from one of the Hage lawsuits and gives a good overview. http://elkodaily.com/news/local/judge-s ... f887a.html

This from the other!http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15602-federal-judge-rules-for-property-rights-smacks-down-abusive-feds

Go to and read each court ruling and it should be enough for people to pause and grasp what has and been going on.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ron that's so well thought out and worded that I dare not add to it. I can only say I agree with you completely.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

A little more historical background.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes ... da-rancher

What the Networks Aren't Telling You About the Nevada Cattle Battle
By Rich Noyes | April 17, 2014 | 13:37

14.4K 159 Reddit0 18 A A

The showdown between federal authorities and rancher Cliven Bundy, his family and supporters in Nevada is one of those rare topics from the libertarian-conservative news agenda that actually made its way into the establishment media. Between last Thursday and Monday, ABC, CBS and NBC gave the story a total of nearly 16 minutes of coverage on their morning and evening newscasts.

Network journalists have consistently framed the case as one of a rancher failing to pay the requested fees for his use of government land. But they have failed to use the case to tell the larger story of how environmental rules - in this case, regulations to protect the desert tortoise, have been implemented in ways that help favored interests (land developers, or solar companies) while hurting others (cattle ranchers, for example).

The networks have focused on the amount of money the government has demanded of Cliven Bundy, and let the Bundy side talk about the government's heavy-handed tactics in seeking collection. On Saturday's Good Morning America, for example, ABC's Mike Boettcher framed the story this way: "For 20 years, rancher Cliven Bundy has refused to pay rent to herd his cattle on government land, $1.1 million in grazing fees."

The next morning on NBC, Sunday's Today included a soundbite from Bundy's son, Ammon, talking about the intimidating force employed by federal agents: "They had the tasers, they had the weapons, they had the dogs, and we had nothing except us. We were almost equally numbered, and then they were the aggressors."

Omitted from the network coverage: How cattle ranchers like Bundy have been victimized by federal government plans to protect the desert tortoise, and how the current showdown was provoked by an environmentalist lawsuit. As the Las Vegas Sun explained: "Things came to a head when environmentalists threatened to sue the agency to protect the endangered desert tortoise that lives on the land where Bundy's cattle grazed. The BLM said Bundy's cattle trampled the tortoise's habitat."

In their coverage of the Nevada showdown, neither ABC nor NBC ever acknowledged the role of regulations designed to protect the tortoise, while CBS's Teri Okita in a Friday morning report included it as an afterthought: "Authorities want the cattle off this land for another reason: Environmentalists say it's home to the endangered desert tortoise and it's protected land."

In fact, the tortoise is listed as a "threatened" species, not yet "endangered," but it's that designation (applied in 1989) which led to restrictions on cattle ranchers' use of land in Nevada, California and Utah. And the federal government has for decades permitted some destruction of tortoise habitats if they like the project, while cracking down on others as they see fit.

As the Powerline blog has well-documented, the BLM has enforced these rules in ways that favor projects endorsed by federal bureaucrats, such as solar projects, while being tough on the cattle ranchers.

But go back more than 20 years, and you'll find a similar effort in the Clinton era to sacrifice 22,000 acres of tortoise habitat to Las Vegas area land developers, even as they set up restrictions on cattle ranchers including Cliven Bundy. As the Washington Post's Tom Kenworthy documented in a March 21, 1993 article (retrieved via Nexis, so no link):

Three years ago, with tortoise populations crashing largely because of habitat destruction across its range in Nevada, California, Arizona and Utah, the federal government added the tortoise to its list of threatened species. The designation immediately imperiled tens of millions of dollars worth of construction projects in this development-crazed city.

But it also triggered a novel experiment in the peaceful resolution of endangered species conflicts that is similar, in many respects, to the process Babbitt would like to try nationwide to defuse explosive development-versus-environment fights.

Employing a rarely used mechanism approved by Congress a decade ago, environmentalists, developers, government officials, cattlemen, miners and off-road vehicle enthusiasts began negotiating a "habitat conservation plan." The hope was it would satisfy both the needs of the tortoise and the Las Vegas area's rapacious appetite for development.

The result was a plan to protect the tortoise by providing vast tracts of federal land as a refuge while sacrificing other tortoise areas to development....

By mid-1991, the Fish and Wildlife Service had approved a short-term conservation plan that allows for development of about 22,000 acres of tortoise habitat in and around Las Vegas in exchange for strict conservation measures on 400,000 acres of federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land south of the city. The plan is funded by development fees of between $ 250 and $ 550 an acre paid by builders. Almost $ 10 million has been raised so far.

Among the conservation measures required are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land....

Cattlemen are particularly irate, and have gone to court to prevent grazing restrictions on BLM land now outside the tortoise management area, where the federal agency has tried to keep cattle from competing with tortoises for forage for three months in the spring. Ranchers like Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a "land grab," are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve.

The Post article was written more than 21 years ago, before Bundy had been assessed even one dime in fees, and validates his claim that his grievance is about the intrusiveness of federal rules aimed at protecting the desert tortoise, and how the government has used the rules as yet another tool to pick economic winners and losers.

It's background and context that the networks could have provided as they picked up on the story of a rancher fighting the feds - but, sadly, was omitted from the broadcast coverage this past week.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes ... z2zF0Btrp2

He has tried to pay the state and the county it appears and they have not taken his payments.

Go back and read the article in the above post from 1993. Note the following.

"Employing a rarely used mechanism approved by Congress a decade ago, environmentalists, developers, government officials, cattlemen, miners and off-road vehicle enthusiasts began negotiating a "habitat conservation plan." The hope was it would satisfy both the needs of the tortoise and the Las Vegas area's rapacious appetite for development.

The result was a plan to protect the tortoise by providing vast tracts of federal land as a refuge while sacrificing other tortoise areas to development....

Among the conservation measures required are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land....

Clive Bundy refused to take the FEDERAL govt's "take it or else" offer to "eliminate" his grazing rights.

Even after engaging in "negotiations" these ranchers were still forced off these lands.

It is NOT about the payment of these fees to graze these lands, because the BLM has no intention of allowing grazing on these lands, (it is why they were destroying water systems)

It is about the breaking of the multiple use contracts that these lands have stood under for generations so other forms of development can occur.

Should he have gone to district court to fight this, possibly so, but remember the district court judge that dimissed the case against Harvey Whitmore who was convicted of illegal campaign contributions to Harry Reid the very same day he was convicted and perhaps one can see How Mr Bundy would wonder how much "justice" would have been granted in a court such as this?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug I see your carrying gst's water for him now. We all know that you think ranchers are better than the rest of us peons. The man is a criminal. He grazed land for 20 years that he did not pay for. He lost in the courts. He thumbed his nose at those in charge of the land and in essence all American citizens and now he is going to lose it. He could have taken a buyout, but he still thinks he is an 18th century cowboy so he was going to defy the nation. Good luck with that. 
If this guy was successful I'll bet we see them try it in North Dakota too. I can see Shaug now riding the range with his AR. Shaug when the Forest Service in North Dakota was evaluating it's management did you collect signatures for any of the grazing organizations wanting more control of our federal lands? Ate you one of the ranchers that think you need more say in the use of our public lands? 
Many are throwing up all kinds of smoke. Like the Hage's, water rights, Harry Reid etc. None of it has any bearing on this case. Those who think they are better than other American citizens are creating all kinds of propaganda for their own advantage in the never ending struggle for control of our public lands.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

shaug, unlike Hage Family, Bundy was and remains a victim of his own actions and has to this point in the courts not been able to provide documentation to support his claims and by his own words even as of yesterday says he does not recognized the land being owned by the Fed Gov yet the courts and the constitution of the State of NV do. So he is in conflict with the very state he claims he recognizes.

Like others you are trying to cloud the issue of Bundy. His is a losing position which has been demonstrated over and over.

There are as I said issues that need to be looked at and discussed and I do believe changed by Congress regarding the BLM actions. The fact that Hage Family won their challenge underscores that. It still does not excuse or give Bundy a pass on his choices he made.

The continued attempt to muddy the waters is really holding back public support for said investigation and change. Instead it is starting to galvanize the thinking and informed public against the ranchers because of the continued attempts to misinform and cloud the issues in an attempt to make it sound as if Bundy has been wronged for changes that he has no standing to challenge!!

I have been really fair and unbiased in looking at this issue. I support the Hage Family, I support the ranchers in their want for the BLM to manage the land for multipurpose use that should include grazing without having to give up water rights. I support peaceful protests even on Bundy's behalf but I do not support armed confrontation or implied violence by those protesting.

I have stated over and over that the BLM action in my opinion was an over the top reaction, and I believe that the BLM in some of its policy has been wrong as well.

You will find that support for change regarding the BLM will come quicker, and more effectively if people would stop putting Bundy up as some martyr and instead move past him and instead rally and put the Hage Family and others like them still fighting the right way as your rally point!!

People when they read the court rulings, see the time line of the events do not hold sympathy for Bundy because of his own arrogance and stupidity that cost him any chance of fixing a situation he did not like. Instead they see a thief who has been stealing from the people by using public lands for 20 plus years.

They see the idiots armed talking about putting their women out front to be cannon fodder to insight the public outrage but instead that outrage is at them. Then there is Bundy himself he simply cannot shut up and every day does more harm in the public eye to this situation with his nonsense claims and statements.

Was in a small town bar last night for a birthday party of a friend. The core of those attending where farmers and cattle producers including those that rent pasture in the Sand Hills!! This subject was brought up and discussed and I thought would be pretty heated especially since there where a good number who had a bit to much celebration juice. Only one of the dozens of them felt Bundy was right and the actions of the armed protesters the proper course of action. The rest had went from support to disgust especially when they got the facts..

All of them want the BLM reigned in, as do I, but it was very clear that the truth of the situation has burned away the bulk of the support for Bundy! Facts tend to do that!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think the people that support Bundy do so because they want to steal some public land for themselves or friends. I was typing something political today and forgot the r in freeloader. Evidently I was till thinking about Bundy. Shaug do you support feeloaders?

I see Harry Reid is calling the people who came to Bundy's aid with their firearms domestic terrorists. I warned about how stupid they would make us responsible gun owners look. We played right into the liberals hands with this cowboy stupidity.

I previously said:


> The problem is he thinks like Gordon Khal. He has not paid his grazing fees, and Gordon Khal said the government had no authority to tax him so he never paid his taxes. Slight variation of the same rationalization to satisfy greed.


I also said:


> t does bother me that these people will display behavior that endangers our second amendment rights. People like the Unibomber, Gordon Khal, David Koresch etc lend ammunition (pun intended) to those who would attack our second amendment. The Bundy's do not deserve anyones support. No more than the guy sticking up a convenience store. The left calls us radical for defending the second amendment. With an administration like the Obama administration this is a very dangerous time to support those who tarnish the reputation of honest gun owners. We know the AG Holder has no respect for the constitution and hates the second amendment. Our best defense is still our brain, and we need to present ourselves as if we use ours.


Shaugs buddy Bundy doesn't care about our rights or the second amendment. He cares about free grazing and ripping off the American people by not paying for 20 years of grazing. His mindless cave man supporters think they are Rambo. Next time we will see how tough they are when one catches a bullet between the eyes. Then everyone will be angry with the BLM. Who's really at fault, and who is going to loose? We will loose respect in the eyes of more voters and we gun owners will be the biggest looser. Supporting a criminal is never a good idea even if he is a rancher.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

A big mess thanks to a deadbeat.His claim it's his land or Nevada's land is bogus.The land was ceded to the US by Mexico before Nevada was a State and it's status never changed.Even the Nevada constitution acknowledges that.There is no 'States Rights' issue here.
This guy has lost at least TWO federal cases and has ignored repeated court orders.They have negotiated with the jerk for years and he thumbs his nose at all authority.The Nevada Cattlemens Assoc has rejected his position.He owes us money and he has to get off OUR land.
There is no Constitutional issue involved except the distasteful 'First Amendment' areas the Feds tried to set up but that is an issue arising out of this protest,not Bundy's claims or the underlying case against him.Again,there is NO States Rights or Constitutional issue involved-if you disagree,please enlighten us.
Some keep saying 'tortoise' this or that,that he tried to pay the State(only an amount he wanted and how can that satisfy a Fed debt?-Tell your creditors you want to pay someone else and see how that works),that his fences were torn down or not repaired and ad nauseum-ALL dealt with in the court cases he attended and lost.Like the environmental laws(tortoise,extent of grazing,etc)or not it's the law of the land and he like hundreds of other ranches have to abide by them or GET OFF OUR LAND.
Simply a case over a deadbeat that has cost us millions and still counting.It's OUR land,play by the rules Clive or get the F off.There is no 'higher' principle involved in the case.
As to demonizing the 'feds',the 'show of force' etc.Sure some may think excessive but know that there have been at least 3 pipe bombings in Gov offices in the area and Fed employees and their FAMILIES have been repeatedly threatened there.As to the officers and agents themselves,I'm sure there are some sour apples but most are just like us.They have jobs,bills,families and personal lives.Bet many hunt and fish and would be great guys to have a beer with.Many have served here and overseas with honor and sacrifice.They are ordered to enforce COURT orders.What do we expect them to do?
Sad damn deal to rally around a deadbeat and demonize them.
I hope no one on either side sheds blood.I hope it can be resolved peacefully but the law must be enforced(in fact some groups are threatening lawsuits against the GOV to make them enforce the court orders).I also know this increases the liklihood that both 'sides' will continue a sick arms race,shortages of ammo,components etc will continue and regardless of outcome,will only aid those in favor of 'gun control'.All over nothing more than a deadbeat.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I perhaps should not have split the discussion with a new topic so I'll post here also. Utah is having meetings talking about having federal land shifted to ownership by the states. This is the first step in the land grab. The Sagebrush Rebellion is alive and strong, especially in the Mormon state for some reason. It's nearly as strong in Nevada and has some members in just about every western grazing state. Federal to state is the first step and state to private will be the next step. This is as serious a threat as the anti hunters or worse for those who are not rich enough to pay exorbitant fees to hunt private land.

Federal land belongs to all people of this nation. Lets face it most people will never have the money to own even a quarter section of land, but they can get in their car and drive to some federal land where they can enjoy the great outdoors. However, there are those who don't want you out there. Unless you pay them of course. What do a few million sportsmen do when left without their main recreational activity? Loosing federal land is no small loss for hunters, fishermen, campers, birdwatchers, four wheel enthusiasts etc.


----------

