Anyone else keeping up with this Cliven Bundy/BLM conflict? What are your thoughts? It was apparently very close to escalated violence yesterday.

i posted in the GD thread. i'm not sure my position would be welcome by the statist here. it's a interesting read over there, some people really understand and are very knowledgeable. others are what ARFCOM has become when the call of duty liberals started flooding in. i personally respect average citizens making a stand, most of those guys are mocked and insulted because they have AK's, highpoints,etc........ i personally don't think it's over. i'm glad the guy is getting his cows back

I haven't followed it close enough to give a very intelligent opinion.

This isn't over... I hope everybody realizes this.

I can't take credit for this well though out synopsis on the Bundy fiasco but this guy nails it w/o being swayed by emotion or old time Hollywood films romanizing the west and ranchers in general..

td

http://www.subguns.com/boards/sword.cgi?read=2044806

So there is a lot of hot air flying around, and a certain amount of "I'll help anyone who fights the feral gummint", even if the guy doing the fighting is a jackwad. Here is how it looks to me like things originally developed.

In 18-somethinorother, the Bundy ancestors, and a whole bunch of other people, show up in bumfucked Nevada and start running cattle on unclaimed public land. They're just like people all over the growing frontier, which is what gave rise to the cowboy culture of the West. This land does not belong to these folks; they haven't met the requirements to lay claim to it. And that is just fine with them, since they basically get to use the land for free, without investing in property, upkeep or paying taxes. Problem is that the unclaimed nature of the public land leads to conflict between the ranchers (even little brush wars) and overgrazing. So eventually the Feds formed the BLM, whose job it is to start actually managing this open public land, setting out who can graze where, and how much. For this they charge a fee, that is for all intents and purposes, a kind of rent.

That works out fine for everyone, until the water starts to dry up. The BLM, whose job it is, after all, to establish how much grazing the property can sustain, cuts waaay back on how much cattle can be run there. Bundy's don't like that, which is understandable. Some folks who are also ranching there just pack up and leave, but the Cliven Bundy sticks it out.

Later still, according to Bundy's daughter Shiree, in 1993 Bundy butts heads with the BLM again. Apparently Bundy felt the BLM "were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve." My assumption is that he probably wanted to fix the water issue by installing irrigation. Anyone who has dealt with the BLM can tell you, they don't like you developing the land they manage.

This last bit is where it becomes clear that Bundy is high on his own bullshit. He actually believes that this land is "his", even though he has no deed, his ancestors never met the requirements to claim it, has never paid taxes on it, and in fact willingly paid rent to the Government for it's use for generations. And believing his own bullshit idea about owning land he doesn't own, he proceeds to "fire them because they weren’t doing their job."

I got news for you folks. You don't get to "fire" the BLM because you don't like the way they managed public land to your disadvantage, any more than you get to "fire" your landlord if you are renting a business property or house. He VOLUNTARILY stopped paying his grazing fees in protest. In spite of this, the BLM have him 5 years to get back with them on the fees, but he refused to do so. He just kept running cattle on the property, and developed it for irrigation in violation of their refusal. The BLM sent him notices, but made no effort to physically stop him, probably judging that the cost of doing so would be greater than the loss of the disputed grazing permits. He seems to have taken this as confirmation that they had given up their land, but they hadn't.

After 5 years, the BLM offered the permit to Clark County for $375,000. The country snapped it up, and quite happily designated the land as protected tortoise habitat as a means of fulfilling requirements on a Habitat Conservation Plan they had established (thus reaping rewards from both state and fed governments for designating protected wildlife zones)

At this point, Clive Bundy may have realized he was well and truly screwed. It is one thing to graze un-permitted cattle on empty BLM land. It is entirely another to install irrigation and run big hooved beasts around on protected wildlife habitat. That is something the feds WILL NOT stand for. He appears to have tried to get around this by submitting a grazing permit payment to the county, assuming that if they accepted it, it would confer grazing rights. Naturally they kicked it back. They HAD to, for three reasons: A) They have no authority to sublet the land. If it isn't being used for it's designated purpose as stated to the BLM, then they are in violation of the agreement. B) They do not manage the land, the BLM does that. C)The land has been designated a protected wildlife refuge. The county has already reaped the rewards for that designation, and once it is so designated it is a done deal by law.

And so that is basically that. Clive Bundy made a foolish decision 20 years ago when he got a bug up his ass about how the BLM was managing property he mistakenly thought was his. He should never have stopped paying his grazing fees. From that point on, he was nothing more than a squatter, a trespasser and a thief. Why people want to stand up in defense of a stubborn old man who made a stupid decision 20 years ago and now has to pay the piper is a little lost on me. I understand resenting the Feds for their overreaching. But I like my complaints to be legitimate, and not some jacked-up Sovereign Citizen crap from people who think they can make up their own laws to suit their convenience, drive without licenses, not pay their bills, and lay claim to property that isn't theirs.

Maybe it's just me though.

Thank you for reposting that, it gave me a new prospective on the whole situation.

Nailed it.

Agreed

So there is no credence to the information that points to solar, mineral or other promised development of the land?

I've read a bit on both sides, but not enough to tell fact from fiction.

And yet more pearls of wisdom from the same forum....

Only a fool would think the Govt. would back down that easy without a contingency plan.

td

http://www.subguns.com/boards/sword.cgi?read=2045695


Of course its not over.

The feds will simply freeze him out economically. What the hell is he going to do with his cattle the the only buyers for them have been served with federal garnishment orders for any money due to him. The buyers are going to pay the feds, not Bundy.

The feds will garnish his bank accounts, any stocks or bonds he owns, and pretty soon, ole Bundy will be unable to pay his electric bill, or put gas in his truck.

Try selling some more cows, oh, wait, the buyers are under federal garnishment order, no money from there either.

Mr. Bundy is going to find what subsistence living is all about real soon. And when he walks into town (cause he cannot afford gas), and into the local fed office to complain about it, he will find himself under arrest, no standoff, no mess, with his court appointed idiot public defender, his farm auctioned off at a U.S. marshall sale, and not even warranting an footnote in a history book.

Thats how this ends.

I keep hearing more and more about it being solar and tortoises instead of the fees that he owes being the reason for the fed involvement. The fees should be a state issue.

there's stuff about harry reid and the Chinese floating around, who knows, disinformation seems to be the information

And now...the rest of the story: http://youtu.be/UW28j7IU_ME



http://youtu.be/tAwALTdrMZ8

You'll have to forgive me for not wanting to die so some guy I don't know can run cows on government land

Gr

Tortoises.

The same tortoise species the same government went out and killed to thin the heard, so to speak.

The plot thickens:

Harry Reid and his son

Things are never as simple as they seem when the .gov is involved, ESPECIALLY if it's a democrat .gov....

Just sayin'.......

This is interesting http://scgnews.com/bundy-ranch-what-youre-not-being-told

I still don't see a compelling reason why this bundy guy is entitled to use this land, public or not.

It's public.
 

So the link with Reid and the Bundy dispute has legs.

I guess using the "It's public" logic I can pick out a prime parcel of land on Lake Lanier and build a house.

It's public property controlled by the Corps of Engineers.

The alleged crap linking Reid with the land Bundy's squatting on fell through in 2012 and this is 2014..???

td

 

I really haven't picked a side to be on in this one.  

My understanding is that there were taxes that were supposed to have been paid going back over a decade.  It was a level playing field - all of Bundy's competitors paid the taxes, but  Bundy didn't, which gave him an "unfair" advantage.  The competitors went out of business; Bundy is still there.  Were the taxes fair or not?  Does the government have the right to levy use taxes on public land? Does one farmer have the right to say, "I've never paid taxes before, and I ain't a-gonna start now..."?  

Dunno.

I agree with all the legal analysts who say Bundy doesn't have a leg to stand on, and is in violation of the law.

In fact, I think Reid & co. based their calculation on exactly that premise, expecting they would fold under the pressure of the .fedgov and media.


I just think it backfired a bit.  Some Bundy supporters believe he has a right to use the land without paying (they are wrong, IMHO); some Bundy supporters believe .fedgov went way overboard in their actions (I agree); and some Bundy supporters are/have been looking for any excuse to stand up against .fedgov overreach and excessive force.  The last group worry me most, because they are the ones most likely to react inappropriately and put us (2A supporters) into an uphill battle in the court of public opinion.

I think the issue is that the taxes paid were supposed to be used in part to upgrade and repair the land. This would be an incentive to the farmers. When they (BLM) stopped returning those taxes into the land, Bundy stopped paying them and used his own money to keep up the land.

I just hope this Bundy guy isn't used as some folk hero for the tea party, conservatives, and other groups.

I don't see that ending well for them.
I also see the feds using this as a perfect opportunity to gather lots of information on who showed up. $20 says some of the supporters are plain clothes feds gathering Intel. I bet you ever license plate has been scanned, recorded, and investigated.

Meanwhile James Yeager from Tactical Response is out there with his "guys". I can't see that ending well if there is a raid.

Not to be dramatic, but History does have a funny way of repeating itself.

239 years ago this Sunday...

And you see a compelling reason why the federal gov't is entitled to it?

https://www.facebook.com/bundyranch

The only official link.

I think our government is in terrible debt and ought to rent or sell the majority of the blm land to anybody willing to pay. This isn't a spectacular national park or anything strategic.

This land was likely available for homestead or claim all throughout our history and nobody chose to do do because it's not worth the nominal infrastructure it would take to access it.

Except the BLM drove all of his competitors out of business...



 

So none of them should have paid the taxes?

The taxes were supposed to be used to repair and upgrade the land.  The BLM were no longer doing that.  They were basically just pocketing the money.  It's the same principle with the tolls for 400.  They were originally used to pay off the bonds for the roadway.  Now that it has been done, there is no need for the toll.



 

That seems to be the crux of the issue that Cliven Bundy has. Why should he pay federal taxes to use state land? Does the state belong to the Federal Gov't, or is the Federal Gov't comprised of the states?

Do you have the right to own any property? If you read your county's charter, you'll likely see that you don't, in that during an emergency, the county reserves the right to seize your property to it's own use. This doesn't only apply to land, but any property.


This is the language that started the civil war. The right to one's property.

BLM is the landlord, not a contractor. Start thinking rent not tax. We don't know what they did or didn't do. Perhaps they built a road and paid cash for it, but spread the cost over 10 years. Just because the road is built doesn't mean its paid for.

I think you have to be a lefty at heart to think this guy is owed something by the BLM.

It'll never be a good business plan to run cattle in the desert. If you have to count on using 10x as much free land to graze, you might ought to think of moving to a better spot.

I have problems with using tax money for this kind of stuff.

I see 2 sides on this.

TreeDawg, it's hard for me to argue that article you posted, that was a great argument.

I have more of a problem with how the BLM is handling this with excessive force. This needs to be settled in court, not an armed standoff in the desert. I'm definitely not a lefty, but this shows the problems with government control. Personally, I believe we need to scale our government programs way back, this included. As a country, we have way bigger fish to fry than 1 single farmer that's been letting his cows graze the same land for the past 200 years. There's not a good reason to invest so many resources into this, when we don't even invest that much into our national border with drug cartels. If it hasn't been such a huge problem before now, why the excessive force to make it a problem now? There's something that stinks behind the BLM's over-the-top involvement, and the smoke signals Harry Reid is behind this. Everything that big government cares about has to do with money. If it doesn't make them money, they don't care.

Leave the man alone, like the government has always done with him, and let him pay his taxes to the state of Nevada. The federal government is way overreaching it's power, and that's the side I agree with him about.

Want successful land management? Get rid of over-extending expensive government programs, and hire it privately.

Whether you think Bundy is an idiot or not, does anybody here think he and the people that backed him are terrorists?  Harry Reid does

Methinks he (Harry Reid) dost protest too much....

Funny how Harry's ex-senior aid, who was completely unqualified for the position, called a halt to the stand-off, just 4 days after being appointed to HEAD the BLM.

A little TOO convenient, IMHO.

I posted this in a seperate thread in GD couple days ago but here is my take on the events..