Bundy Ranch/BLM

[Frosty]

Has anyone one else bee following the Bundy Ranch saga? This rancher in Nevada had people come from all over to protest/stop the Gov./BLM. It appears after numerous days of confrontation which was building as more people flocked to the area then BLM realized that 99.9% of the protesters on the ranch were armed & ready & BLM stepped back after the sheriff negotiated a temporary solution before SHTF.
Here's an earlier link to what's going on http://arizonastatemilitia.com/constitution/arizona-state-militia-now-on-site-in-nevada/
Fortunately BLM backed off and didn't do a Wako, Ruby Ridge, etc. although temporarily mind you, and no one has to attend their own funeral.

[MikeBjerum]

I was working in Las Vegas when this started, and as it grew.  It was interesting to read and listen to the local media and compare it to the national media like USA Today, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and the talking heads on both sides of the political aisle.

A lot of information concerning these contracts and how they work, as well as, the actual facts behind how these ranchers are diligent in their dealings locally that never made the national news.

I don't think it got much ink or time, but does anybody want to venture a guess at how lucky the BLM is to have any living agents left after Tasering Bundy's son?  Talk about the "Shot Heard Around The World."

[Frosty]

Yea, ink time was sparse and it took some time for the MSS to bring it up. It wasn't until the protest started growing with militia groups (2 I believe) as well as others & confrontations increased. There are allegations that Sen. Reid & his son were involved with the initial land dispute, which involved some deal with a Chinese solar co., they used the tortoise as the reason Bundy had to leave as well as other reasons per BLM. Will the issue be pursued? Most likely no, but the gov. will make an example of Bundy and other participants.

[dipisc]

Hi;

     Don't forget that the Milita had sniper positions set up  and  that BLM/feds realized that  THEY  would be the people surrounded and cut off ! All of the drones and copters would have not helped them at all.

[mkm]

I've been wondering a lot about this. I even thought about starting a discussion on it.

First, I think it is very important to see citizens stand up to the government and win (at least for now).

However, I find it difficult to find Mr. Bundy completely innocent from the, admittedly, limited research I've done. M58, could you provide some links to those local stories? If he hasn't worked under the rules and payed his legitimate dues, then he shouldn't be allowed to continue to have his cattle there.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the government's heavy handed militant response. I also don't know how legitimate those fines/fees are. How much work has been done to change these laws through the legal process, just curious?

[Sponsor]

[kmitch200]

Well lets look at those fees....  Currently, grazing fees are set at approx $1.35 @ head.
Bundy was said to have about 900 "trespass cattle".
Even if we more than double the herd size to 2500,
put them on the land for 21 years,
that still doesn't add up to anywhere NEAR 1 million....more like $70,875.

He stated he thought he might owe $300k but would only pay it to NV or Crook County.
Anyone know how this 300k figure was reached?

[Pathfinder]

I've been wondering a lot about this. I even thought about starting a discussion on it.

First, I think it is very important to see citizens stand up to the government and win (at least for now).

However, I find it difficult to find Mr. Bundy completely innocent from the, admittedly, limited research I've done. M58, could you provide some links to those local stories? If he hasn't worked under the rules and payed his legitimate dues, then he shouldn't be allowed to continue to have his cattle there.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the government's heavy handed militant response. I also don't know how legitimate those fines/fees are. How much work has been done to change these laws through the legal process, just curious?

I've run into a number of what I refer to as "sunshine patriots" on another board who make this same point. Consider this.

Our rights apply to the worst of us as well as the most pristine. Was Bundy pristine? I don't know and I really don't care. The libtards play up the lack of payment and "free" grazing he gets, and usually wax poetic over him - and us who support him - dying some horrific and painful death.

For those of us old enough, we remember well Larry Flynt and the hand-wringing that rights advocates did over his publication of Hustler magazine. Gee, if only he weren't so personally repugnant, if only his magazine wasn't such smut, we could get behind him. Well, guess what folks, get behind him or there will be no one left to worry about you when the .gov comes for your most treasured rights.

[tombogan03884]

This is about all I've seen on the subject.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/13/is-harry-reid-involved-seven-answers-to-seven-questions-youre-probably-asking-right-now-about-the-nevada-rancher-situation/

Generally speaking nothing you are hearing is true.
The Feds have been controlling western lands since the days of the railroad right of ways, Reid's land deal is about 100 miles away from this area, the Chinese deal fell through more than a year ago and has no bearing on the situation, the State and county have absolutely nothing to do with federal land use, so his claim of trying to pay the fees to them is BS and he does owe the money.
It seems this is just some A hole trying to use public opinion to weasel out of paying fees that every other rancher has been paying right along.
Also, since he owes fees back to the 1990's his claims of "oppression" sound really suspicious.
Just because he's opposing the feds doesn't make him a good guy.
No one who has yet commented is actually in that business, I'll reserve judgement until I see what Pathfinder and some of the others , who actually know know the subject have to say.

[mkm]

I've run into a number of what I refer to as "sunshine patriots" on another board who make this same point. Consider this.

I understand what you're saying and don't disagree with rights being for everyone. I also don't agree with the government's current response. I'm just trying to form an honest assessment of the situation. Is he a completely innocent man being railroaded by the feds, is he a legitimate patriot standing up for the rights of all, or is he a freeloader with a good sells pitch to get already mad folks riled up? The truth is probably somewhere in between. I don't consider myself a "sunshine patriot;" I'm just an independent thinker trying to gather truths to make an informed decision. It's easy to make a snap judgment for or against based off of pro/anti-government views.

For the record, I take nothing personal and mean nothing personal.

[Solus]

I read a report about the history of the Bundy Family and the Land Rights issue.....have no idea how factual it is....

The gist of it is that back in the 1800s while the area was just a territory, the Bundy family and others in the area were having disputes over water rights and got the authorities at that time involved to settle the dispute.

An agreement was reached with provisions allowing grazing cow/calf pairs by the different parties based on the number the water they had rights to would sustain.  The participants agreed to pay a fee for the arbitration and a continuing fee for it's maintenance each year as circumstances changed.

Some time later the fee for arbitration was changed to be called a license to graze the agreed upon  number of cattle on the land.  Since the cost and the number of cattle remained the same, none of the participants cared what the charge was called.

Next the land was put under government control, but nothing else changed...and again, no one minded because their usage and cost stayed the same.

Then in more recent history, the government decided to restrict the grazing usage of the government land to protect the turtles...and the number of cattle allowed was reduced significantly...from something like 2800 head to 900 head....and not sure of those exact numbers.

Well this bought some contention and Bundy, at least objected and finally stopped paying.  That was maybe 5 years ago....

The Bundys claim they have documented proof of their family's continued ownership, occupation and use of the land since way back when it was a territory.  They also claim that laws in effect back then gave them title to the lands.

Now...assuming all that is true...we might form an opinion about the standing of Bundy's case.

On one hand, I see incremental government takeover of the land so Bundy might have "right" on his side.

However, by allowing the government to weasel into the situation, he is in violation of the law...

Just like gun owners in Connecticut are in violation of the law by not registering their firearms and magazines.