BLM backs down in Nevada Cattle roundup

Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
People who threaten armed resistance to federal officers after losing in court are not patriots. Neither are those who defend them.




United States District Judge Lloyd D. George was nominatedby President Ronald Reagan on April 18, 1984



So how would ypu classify our forefathers? Rebels?
Traitors - to an undemocratic monarchy - and loyal patriots - to our nascent democracy.

In my country, we ultimately decide things by voting. Anyone who advocates differently is unworthy of calling themselves an American. Fortunately, America's incoming generation is a huge upgrade over the folks getting ready to check out.
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Fortunately, America's incoming generation is a huge upgrade over the folks getting ready to check out.

Maybe, . . . maybe not.





Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrme

Nothing that has happened warrants a militant attitude?!? His family has owned and operated their ranch since the 1800's. BLM agents were taking their cattle.


Public lands are not "his ranch". That seems to be a huge point of misunderstanding for him (and you).


er... Public lands and cattle grazing are an issue that goes back to the 1800's. Remember that issue called "range wars" it was fought in part of cattle and grazing. Depending upon the state, cattle can graze on public lands and vice versa. Bison grazing on public and private land is an example.

From what I understand, this guy has not 1 but 2 court cases against him and so his cows are not permitted on the land. However, the government in its excellant way of handling complex situations, looks like it made FUBAR of the situation.

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
Let me get this straight: The Forkie, the idealist liberal says the law is the law and we have a fine court system for challenging rulings and a fine system for redress of grievances. While the conservative Bob says what's right is right; to hell with the law and the government (and the Chinese, too).

I'm having trouble keeping you guys pigeon holed. But don't worry about me. I'll survive. And if I don't it won't be because of this.


I have a real problem with any agency that uses the power of the government to strip rights from American citizens. The BLM tried to do just that with the Bundy family back in 1993, under the false pretenses of an endangered turtle habitat. The subsequent court verdicts against the family were also based on the same false pretenses of an endangered turtle habitat. The EPA and NGO environmental groups, using the power of the BLM, are trampling on the very people whose best interests are in maintaining a superior stewardship of the land that they use and need to survive.

It gets even uglier when someone like Harry Reid uses the same agency to enrich his own family while destroying other families. There was a page on the BLM website that specifically mentioned Bundy's trespass cattle interfering with a solar energy project. That page was removed from the BLM website right around the same time as the BLM pull back from the Bundy ranch and the return of the cattle they had rustled from the ranch. Ole Harry doesn't like evidence of his conflict(s) of interest sitting around on official government websites.

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrme

Nothing that has happened warrants a militant attitude?!? His family has owned and operated their ranch since the 1800's. BLM agents were taking their cattle.


Public lands are not "his ranch". That seems to be a huge point of misunderstanding for him (and you).


They are "our ranch". His too.

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
Are conservatives saying that what we need here is an activist judge to ignore the law and do the "right" thing? Sure sounds like it to me.


I would suggest that the activism in the courtroom already happened...and it needs to be corrected.
Written by another Nevada Centennial (the family has had their ranch in Nevada for more than 100 years) Ranch family member.

"Why Clive Bundy isn't WRONG.

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

-Kena Lytle Gloeckner"


Man doesnt want to pay sales tax on soda....threatens store with gun

When the militia is done pointing guns at Feds in NV they should road trip to Chicago and gets this guy's back. Clearly he's being intimidated by Big Brother.
Quote

Originally posted by: BobOrme
Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
Are conservatives saying that what we need here is an activist judge to ignore the law and do the "right" thing? Sure sounds like it to me.


I would suggest that the activism in the courtroom already happened...and it needs to be corrected.


I don't agree. If you want to use the Feds' lands to graze your cattle, you have to play by their rules. Else buy your own land and go private. You can't use public lands but make up your own rules. But again, I'm in New Jersey and don't understand all this BLM stuff. I'm just trying to apply common sense to the situation.
Shades of Saddam: The scumbags were "actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front" as human shields. YouTube video.

No wonder we have Baghdad BobOrme making up stories to defend them.


Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now