plonk

Meh,Bundy might be guilty and I will give a shit right after they hold all the people in office responsible for their crimes.

 

Yep, right after they go after Holder for running guns across the boarder to the Mexican cartels.






 

 

Way to oversimplify. Maybe he has supporters because its a little more complicated than that, and people in general are tired or being pushed around by thenFed land agencies?

Tie it into another .gov agency (BATFE) making a shoestring being illegal and the the horseshit becomes sickeningly apparent.    Add in the Fed court saying, "yep, they make the rules."  

You proles better listen hard.  Don't get uppity, we know what's best for you.

Fuck that.

He could have as many cattle on his <100 acre ranch as he wants. That's not the issue. The issue is a welfare queen with a cowboy hat misusing public land and plucking the heart strings of mouth breathers and sovereign citizens.

Something about 'better to remain silent and be thought a fool' comes to mind.

+1

Yeah. He did.

If only Bundy and his supporters had thought to follow that advice.

Again, what is wrong with expecting him to pay the same grazing fees as everyone else does? Or keep his cattle on his OWN property? Seems fair.

You mean using public grazing land as intended?

 

What everyone else? The BLM already chased everyone else off. Or should he have just accepted being chocked out of the public grazing land, ceded his water rights and just rolled over?

 

Is 'as intended' different from 'in accordance with the rules'?

Anything to accommodate .gov. At least you're consistent.

Remember, the FSA are bad.  Unless they use the right rhetoric, then they're freedom fighters.

I think the .gov meant to say he will be made an object lesson of.

In the Brave New World common people do not question the decrees of those appointed to guide and, when necessary, rule them.

Maybe he could have paid at least sone of the fees, instead of spending two decades weaseling his way around and spouting sovereign citizen mumbo jumbo in hopes of continuing to leach off the land.

"But he improved it!"

He built irrigation and infrastructure to support his cattle, which isn't proper land stewardship. Overgrazing can have devastating effects, and overgrazing was a cause of the dust bowl. Left unchecked, the cows will continue to overgraze areas and spread out causing significant problems.

See my Lincoln quote above. You're removing all doubt at this point.

a lot of them are skinny as scrub fed cattle. He doesn't finish them there just grows them till the bones are big enough then off to a feed lot

Do you have any evidence that overgrazing was not a factor in causing the dust bowl, or a factor in exacerbating it?

Over grazing my ass. He is getting kicked off the land his family has been on for decades so the rich can get richer. If they haven't over grazed it in 100 years, I doubt they will now.

It is mandatory to be a gay or other twisted minority to work for .gov



 

Did you see the "deal the BLM gave him? they wanted the water rights deeded to his family, and reduced his herd numbers to the point he would have to leave. He didn't sign the new lease, and there was no compromise from either side. The family has been there for decades, and I don't blame them for telling the govt to fuck off.

Didn't he go to court a couple of times to try and prove the existence of those water rights, and failed every time?

lol overgrazing the scrubland... it's a fucking dusty ass desert. the cattle being there helps grass grow and the dung keeps the dust down. there isn't naturally any grass there except right along the river.

Bundy's cows were "overgrazing" the desert tortoise? I thought they were herbivores.

I really can't understand how this thread has got to five pages.

Madcap owned everyone in the last thread with actual facts.  

Then, there are posters from the fucking state of Nevada posting on the issue.  

Yet, there are still those, from 2000+ miles away no less, that have to have the last word with the same talking points.

You're out of your element , Donny

Mostly because they're statists who haven't had a proper punch in the face.

But that's just how I see it.

it's Sturmgeist....that bridge was crossed long ago.

I could watch that for hours

 

Guess what?  He did pay some of the fees.  He played everything legal.  Right up till they pulled the carpet out from under him, changed the rules, and tried to fuck him.

 


Every argument you make against Bundy, is an argument supporting the bureaucratic arm of Government controlling public policy with zero voter influence and no repercussion. Know what other agencies do that?  The ATF, EPA, and FCC.  




Your comment about improving the infrastructure not being "good land stewardship" is false. That has been a key part of public grazing and part of why the BLM was originally established, to help pubic grazing ranchers with fencing and improving grazing land.




Your claim that "over grazing made the dust bowl" is ignorant in the extreme. He's THE LAST public grazer on the land. Also, if you study the history of the dust bowl it was caused by FARMING practices.




You can try to pull the whole "tragedy of the commons" bullshit if you want.  It doesn't apply. There's one guy, some turtles, a small ass herd of cows, and a Federal agency that wants him out so they can "restore" the area to make up for the amount of land they want to panel over with Chinese solar panels destroying the habitat of that other are.




LOL over grazing... I bet the BLM's sell out to energy companies has destroyed more habitat than grazing has in the last 20 years, especially since they've been booting people from the public grazing land.  I know you're trying to sound cool on the internet, but at least do some research first.  


 

Worth repeating......

Bravo to the above... BLM abusing its power to provide cover for more shady land deals in Congressional circles.

Well said.

When the rules are changed to target certain people and areas, you decide which way is correct.

Cattle grazing areas also increase wildlife, as watering is important. Being this is the desert, the water creates a small oasis for wildlife.

Does this interfere with nature's course? No worse than the damming and redirecting of springs and rivers. No different than creating barriers to stop or slow flash flooding. No different than removing vegetation from natural springs because the vegetation is not naturally native to the area.

The fine system is similar to other federal agencies. The fines are substantially more than the cost of the permit and at interest rates that are unrealistic. So, how much does he really owe in fees?

 
Perhaps you should worry more about making the government follow the rules. Something they haven't been good at for a while.

Wow, you nailed it! Makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit...

They wouldn't accept it. He only owes 45k in fees. The rest are fines and interest, which makes it over a million dollars. They wouldn't accept payment until the cattle were removed.

You need to read more...he still owns the deeded water rights in that area..proof was linked in the big thread....             and anyone who has the slightest clue on how the west was settled, would understand that having those water rights gave control over the land........thats how it was done back then..farmers/ranchers could only homestead so many acres(up to 320 at one point), so he who controlled the water controlled the land..just a fact of life back then,,and everyone including the gov knew it and accepted it... his ancestors had those water rights(and thus the land) and passed them down thru the decades...later in life the gov. started the BLM in order to help farmers and ranchers improve their farming/grazing areas........and then suddenly years later, they realize that certain politicians can make money off that land, which led to a change in policies and forcing users off.... the gov told bundy he had to cut his herd,  and give up ownership of his deeded water rights in order to renew his grazing permits....now why would they do that ? overgrazing? my ass, in 100 years of cattle running that land it is in better shape now then when they put the first beef on it....because they need it for a chinese solar project in order to lessen enviro impacts? yes..as well as they need those water rights....I have a question for you..how does the Gov remove deeded water rights simple by forcing the removal of cattle on a grazing permit?Wheres his fair compensation for those water rights? do you have any idea what those rights are worth?

Don't use the chinese solar project argument. It is not based on that region.

You do explain the water rights aspect pretty well. The Bundys and the Hafens were big names in settling that area.

ETA- water rights in Nevada are revocable or non-revocable. They are not area restricted, unless they are a newer revocable based type. Bundy has old water rights, so they are non-revocable, assumable, and for sale.

To give you an example, a 2.2 acre feet permit (which is a normal small water right) will sell for 60-80k. Depending upon the area, the amount is even more. As municipalities encounter people that need to redrill their revocable water right, they force the person to connect to city water. They then assume the water right permit. The state supplements the hookup and construction fees, so the local water agency can gain more access to ground water. It is a controlling move.

From the BLM website;

"The Western Solar Plan established an initial set of 17 Solar Energy Zones, totaling about 285,000 acres of public lands, that serve as priority areas for commercial-scale solar development, with the potential for additional zones through ongoing and future regional planning processes. Two additional Solar Energy Zones were designated in 2013 in Arizona and California. If fully built out, projects in the designated areas could produce as much as 27,000 megawatts of solar energy, enough to power approximately 8 million homes. The program also keeps the door open, on a case-by-case basis, for the possibility of carefully sited solar projects outside SEZs on about 19 million acres in "variance" areas.


What a BLM solar farm looks like;





Looks like if anything is over grazing it's Solar panals.


Oh  look, Bundy cows!





Oops, that's a pretty intact looking habitat.

From what I have heard the solar project requires offset lands for the enviro impact, bundys lands meet that requirment,even though the project isn't near his lands, the water rights could then be sold/used to offset other projects due to its a finite number of water rights, nothing new happens without offsetting water rights..so, bundy's water rights may not be for any project we know about.....

As far as the solar thing, it's based solidly in that region, and was explained on the BLM site.

 


"Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle."





The location of the physical site of the solar plant was never going to be anywhere neat Bundy, it's the offsite mitigation that was going to be.
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/im_attachments/2008.Par.12205.File.dat/IM2008-204_att1.pdf









"Offsite mitigation consists of compensating for resource impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or habitat at a different location than the project area. Offsite mitigation is supplemental to onsite mitigation and is used to enhance the BLM’s ability to fulfill its mission of providing multiple uses on the public lands, while ensuring its resource management objectives are met. In making decisions that are within its discretion (taking into account statutes, regulations, and contractual/property rights of the requester), the BLM has an obligation to approve only land use authorizations that are consistent with its mission and objectives. This may mean that the BLM may be unable to permit certain land use authorizations without appropriate mitigation measures. Onsite mitigation alone may not always be possible or sufficient, though often resources are present offsite that can offer suitable compensation for remaining onsite impacts. Consequently, offsite mitigation may be an effective management tool to ensure appropriate land use authorizations. "





No offsite, no solar in this case.


As to the water rights, some of his water rights are vested, some are not. I don't know much about Nevada water rights specifically, but my family has been involved in helping ranchers for 30+ years now, so I'm WELL aware of the BLM and how it operates in ION ranching country.





















"[span]A certificated groundwater right can be lost by forfeiture or abandonment – "use it or lose it.” Surface water rights can only be lost by abandonment. A review of whether or not a surface water right has been abandoned is based on a review of all the surrounding circumstances; however, water law provides statutory reasons that prevent a declaration of abandonment. Forfeiture of a groundwater right occurs if there is a failure to use the water right for five consecutive years."








Can search his name here, and see all the rights including PDF's of original applications. Some pretty interesting stuff!




 

The mitigation aspect is nice, but the tree huggers have been trying to shut down the land for some time. Gold Butte is about a 65 minute drive from any paved road. The idea is that people would need to hike into the area, if they ever wanted to see it. Hunting and cattle were the two arguments stopping the isolation and redesignation of this land. BLM has gradually restricted access throughout the state. The biggest was during Clinton. Now, we see more "nature" areas being designated. Each Dem has created an expansion of restrictions.

The biggest proponents of removing Bundy and creating it a wilderness area are not from this state. Those writing the articles have never even been to Gold Butte. Devils throat and Devils garden are merely arguments for making it a wilderness area.

The solar idea goes to the Reid family and their connections to the investments. The area was not set for offsetting the impact of solar, but the solar project could be used as an argument to support the restrictions. The Reids have plenty of land on the Arizona side of the Colorado River too.

The other two solar farms have not been as successful as predicted. Ivanpah has an expected positive return at 80 years. The Boulder City farm is at 55 years. Both of these still rely on tax waivers to operate. They were built on dry lake beds or land close to. The land swapping does not make sense, since they are using federal land and not requiring an exchange of private land. That is what BLM requires from others that try land swaps. The mitigation land is not doing anything more than creating another argument to remove people from accessing land.