Nevada Rancher, people defend him?

Status
Not open for further replies.

G51989

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-nevada-rancher-blm-20140412,0,1159016.story#axzz2yjMvzkdF

So, from what I can research.

This rancher was grazing his cattle on land he did not own, nor did he ever own. And he refused to pay grazing fees that every other rancher in the country pays, he engaged in court battles to avoid paying to use public land, which most ranchers pay to use.

So...he steals from the taxpayer owned land....refuses to pay grazing fees other ranchers do....and refuses to listen to court orders....sounds like a leach to me...Right wing nut jobs defend this guy? Sound like he steals more from the taxpayer than any " welfare queen " does.

I feel the feds made a mistake by backing off, I feel they need to make a statement to these people who steal from the taxpayer's land. They should be going in with tanks, helicopters, and arrest the ranchers by force, round up anyone who is in the way, and throw them all in jail. And put anyone in handcuffs who puts the peace officers in danger.

By backout out of this, the Feds are giving the right wing nutjob compound freaks a reason to show up to more legal actions. They should have been rounded up and thrown in jail.
I thought the right wingers hated people stealing from the taxpayer, well this guy is stealing from the taxpayer, and the right wingers seem to be out to defend him and his crappy beef.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,670
1,745
from the article

The government has said the cattle round-up was a “last resort” to enforce court orders ruling that Bundy has failed to pay more than $1 million in fees since 1993 for his cattle to graze on public land. Forcing him either to pay or to give up his cattle is a matter of fairness to the 16,000 ranchers who do follow the rules, U.S. officials say.
If it's solely an issue of back payments, why wasn't this resolved before it reached such a high figure? I am skeptical that it really took anywhere near 20 years for someone to notice and begin assessments to resolve the matter.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
Mr. Bundy was happily paying his fees until the federal government unilaterally changed the terms on him.

They demanded that he reduce his herd by 75% even though he had grazing rights to the land dating back to 1877. That would have put him out of business (which many feel is the real goal here anyway).

So basically, the feds came along, decided that they "owned" the land, and then started unilaterally cancelling and changing generations old agreements.
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
from the article



If it's solely an issue of back payments, why wasn't this resolved before it reached such a high figure? I am skeptical that it really took anywhere near 20 years for someone to notice and begin assessments to resolve the matter.
As far as all the reading I have done is, Bundy has stalled in court via random lawsuits and appeals to avoid paying his fair share to graze on this land, he owes over 1 million dollars to the hardworking tax payers of America, once he appeals ran out, he decided to pull the " Freedom its not my land but I can steal form it legally! " Card.

----------

Mr. Bundy was happily paying his fees until the federal government unilaterally changed the terms on him.

They demanded that he reduce his herd by 75% even though he had grazing rights to the land dating back to 1877. That would have put him out of business (which many feel is the real goal here anyway).

So basically, the feds came along, decided that they "owned" the land, and then started unilaterally cancelling and changing generations old agreements.
The Feds did not " decide " they owned the land, they always have.

The Feds have owned this land for a very long time, the Bundy ranch has NEVER owned the land, the state of Nevada has NEVER owned the land, the federal goverment, AKA the hard working Taxpayers OWN this land. The feds have ever legal right to change terms whenever they want, as they OWN the land. Not the Bundys.

So you are saying its ok for the Bundy ranch to steal from the taxpayer?

And no, the Feds control the grazing rights, not the Bundy Ranch.

And who cares if he goes out of business? He's robbed the taxpayer of over a million dollars in grazing fees, he should be taken by force and have his assets taken and sold off to pay off his debt to the taxpayer.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,670
1,745
As far as all the reading I have done is, Bundy has stalled in court via random lawsuits and appeals to avoid paying his fair share to graze on this land, he owes over 1 million dollars to the hardworking tax payers of America, once he appeals ran out, he decided to pull the " Freedom its not my land but I can steal form it legally! " Card.
Where did you read that? Google brings up a number of things, but none of those details are mentioned in the article or video. I actually dislike asking for sources, but in some cases it's easier if I know we're both reading from the same one.

Mr. Bundy was happily paying his fees until the federal government unilaterally changed the terms on him.

They demanded that he reduce his herd by 75% even though he had grazing rights to the land dating back to 1877. That would have put him out of business (which many feel is the real goal here anyway).

So basically, the feds came along, decided that they "owned" the land, and then started unilaterally cancelling and changing generations old agreements.
Where did you find that?
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
They demanded that he reduce his herd by 75% even though he had grazing rights to the land dating back to 1877.
Admittedly I need to learn more about this case.

However ...

If a contract is being renegotiated, it doesn't matter what the past history is.

Here's a basic question. Who owns the land?

Follow-up ... who gets to set the terms for those who use that land?
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
The Bundy's are the last ranch in Clark County. Chalk one more family ranch up as history. This one is a win for the corporate raised beef. Be careful not to mess with any endangered desert tortoises during the round up of this family's cattle. Round 'em, head 'em out... Rawhide.
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Where did you read that? Google brings up a number of things, but none of those details are mentioned in the article or video. I actually dislike asking for sources, but in some cases it's easier if I know we're both reading from the same one.



Where did you find that?
http://kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/cattle-battle-update-ranchers-son-arrested-utah-ranchers-protest-federal-government-10501.shtml

The Bundy family has refused to reduce the number of cattle on the land owned by the hard working American taxpayer, they have refused to pay grazing fees, and they have refused to follow the law, and have been shut down in court more than once. They have been illegal using taxpayer land to line their own coffers.

I wonder why they have not moved in with Force and arrested the family and seized their assets for robbing the taxpayer of well over a million dolllars. Force should be used in this situation, and let people like Bundy know they are not immune from the law.

----------

The Bundy's are the last ranch in Clark County. Chalk one more family ranch up as history. This one is a win for the corporate raised beef. Be careful not to mess with any endangered desert tortoises during the round up of this family's cattle. Round 'em, head 'em out... Rawhide.
So...ignoring facts? The Bundys never owned the land...not did the state...and they refused to pay grazing fees that every other rancher in the country pays to use public land?

So you support people leeching off the goverment? Stealing taxpayer money?
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
http://kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/cattle-battle-update-ranchers-son-arrested-utah-ranchers-protest-federal-government-10501.shtml

The Bundy family has refused to reduce the number of cattle on the land owned by the hard working American taxpayer, they have refused to pay grazing fees, and they have refused to follow the law, and have been shut down in court more than once. They have been illegal using taxpayer land to line their own coffers.

I wonder why they have not moved in with Force and arrested the family and seized their assets for robbing the taxpayer of well over a million dolllars. Force should be used in this situation, and let people like Bundy know they are not immune from the law.

----------



So...ignoring facts? The Bundys never owned the land...not did the state...and they refused to pay grazing fees that every other rancher in the country pays to use public land?

So you support people leeching off the goverment? Stealing taxpayer money?
Not me! Seize that land, sell the cattle, toss the bum in jail. How dare he graze on what was once deemed public lands. We can do something better with that land... a little fracking perhaps. Book 'em, Dano.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
The Feds did not " decide " they owned the land, they always have.

The Feds have owned this land for a very long time, the Bundy ranch has NEVER owned the land, the state of Nevada has NEVER owned the land, the federal goverment, AKA the hard working Taxpayers OWN this land. The feds have ever legal right to change terms whenever they want, as they OWN the land. Not the Bundys.
The Bundys settled the land before there was a BLM, before the federal government had any interest in the land at all. They had been working that land for years before the federal government decided it was time to come in and charge them to use it. Why do they not have right to land they settled before there was ever a mechanism in place, or a desire on the part of the federal government to charge them?

Do you know how much land the federal government has snatched up out west? It's close to 90% in Nevada.

So you are saying its ok for the Bundy ranch to steal from the taxpayer?
I'm saying I don't believe the Bundy ranch is stealing.

And no, the Feds control the grazing rights, not the Bundy Ranch.
The feds control the grazing rights because they decided they were going to unilaterally take control of the land the family had settled on years before. Land they previously had zero interest in and had made no attempt to control. It's not like they told the Bundys they could settle there but would have to pay a fee to use the land. No, when the Bundys settled in Nevada, it was essentially a free-for-all. It's just that the people were never given a chance to claim owership of the land they settled later on when the federal government decided they were interested in it.

Have you seen a map of "federally owned land" in the west? Why doesn't the Federal government sieze land in the east that "technically" belongs to them? I'd suggest it's only because there are too many people living there to make it feasible. But there are only a few people out west in these types of places, making it easy for the government to come in and seize control and dictate what people are then allowed to do with the land. They don't expect much resistance, well they learned the hard way that people out here aren't down with that anymore.
 

ElectronGuru

macrumors 65816
Sep 5, 2013
1,492
361
Oregon, USA
What it would sound like if the UPS strike went down like this:

The driver, Jairo Reyes, and hundreds of armed union members had threatened to forcefully keep UPS officials from rounding up the approximately 9000 packages. Nearly 4000 of the packages had been seized during the past week. They were being held nearby and could be sent to Utah, authorities said.
 
Last edited:

G51989

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Not me! Seize that land, sell the cattle, toss the bum in jail. How dare he graze on what was once deemed public lands. We can do something better with that land... a little fracking perhaps. Book 'em, Dano.
He has every right to graze on public land if he pays the fees, he did not pay te fee's, he is a leech and belongs in jail. Move in with tanks if the need be.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
Depends, what's their ethnicity?
Exactly, our current administration has made it clear they are OK with certain folks illegally leeching off the taxpayer. "Come to the US, illegally if need be, we'll provide you with everything you need to survive, free of charge."

They've also set a precedent of "selective obedience" to the law when they've picked and chosen which laws they will enforce.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
Exactly, and our current administration has made it clear they are OK with certain folks illegally leeching off the taxpayer as well.

They've also set a precedent of "selective obedience" to the law when they've picked and chosen which laws they will enforce.
This Administration has decided what laws it will enforce and what laws it won't enforce since the beginning. This is nothing new.
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
The Bundys settled the land before there was a BLM, before the federal government had any interest in the land at all. They had been working that land for years before the federal government decided it was time to come in and charge them to use it. Why do they not have right to land they settled before there was ever a mechanism in place, or a desire on the part of the federal government to charge them?

It doesn't matter, the Bundys had the choice to buy the land from the federal goverment more than once over the past century, or lease it. They did neither, and decided to leach. They wanted all the profit with none of the expenses that every other rancher pays.

Do you know how much land the federal government has snatched up out west? It's close to 90% in Nevada.
Keep in mind, any citizen is free to make a request to purchase that land from the feds, why didn't the Bundys make a request to purchase that land? They never have, they were after a free ride.

I'm saying I don't believe the Bundy ranch is stealing.
Grazing their cattle off legally protected federal land while refusing to pay fees many ranchers all over the the country isn't stealing?

The feds control the grazing rights because they decided they were going to unilaterally take control of the land the family had settled on years before. Land they previously had zero interest in and had made no attempt to control. It's not like they told the Bundys they could settle there but would have to pay a fee to use the land. No, when the Bundys settled in Nevada, it was essentially a free-for-all. It's just that the people were never given a chance to claim owership of the land they settled later on when the federal government decided they were interested in it.
They may have settled there first, but it doesn't matter. They had 110 years to purchase the land, or lease it. They did neither, and illegally grazed on it without paying a dime.

Are you saying they deserve a free ride?

Have you seen a map of "federally owned land" in the west? Why doesn't the Federal government sieze land in the east that "technically" belongs to them? I'd suggest it's only because there are too many people living there to make it feasible. But there are only a few people out west in these types of places, making it easy for the government to come in and seize control and dictate what people are then allowed to do with the land.
You do realize, the Feds do not seize privately owned land rigiht? And most of their land is for sale if you ask them, or get a pention going. The Feds only take land no one owns anyway.

The Bundies had their chance to lease or buy all of that land from the feds, as it was for sale at one point, well lets be honest, far more than one point. The Bundies were to cheap to purchase the land in their name, lease the land or pay fees like everyone else does, they belong in jail for theft.

----------

This Administration has decided what laws it will enforce and what laws it won't enforce since the beginning. This is nothing new.
How is that different from any administration in recent history? Or are you just spewing partisan crap?
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
Exactly, our current administration has made it clear they are OK with certain folks illegally leeching off the taxpayer. "Come to the US, illegally if need be, we'll provide you with everything you need to survive, free of charge."

They've also set a precedent of "selective obedience" to the law when they've picked and chosen which laws they will enforce.
Yeah, that's not exactly where I was going with that comment. I was more pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing and their hatred of "welfare queens".

This Administration has decided what laws it will enforce and what laws it won't enforce since the beginning. This is nothing new.
Please, tell us which laws you feel this administration is not following and how previous administrations followed them more closely.

----------

How is that different from any administration in recent history? Or are you just spewing partisan crap?
I'll take partisan crap for $100, Alex.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
The Bundies had their chance to lease or buy all of that land from the feds, as it was for sale at one point, well lets be honest, far more than one point. The Bundies were to cheap to purchase the land in their name, lease the land or pay fees like everyone else does, they belong in jail for theft.
Do you think they could purchase the land now, if they could afford it?

I think the Sierra Club types would prevent that land from ever going up for sale.

And perhaps the federal government should consider who really has legitimate claim to ownership, if not the Bundys.


How is that different from any administration in recent history? Or are you just spewing partisan crap?
So the administration (whichever administration that happens to be) can pick and choose which laws they will follow, but the common man needs to be hauled of to the clink, with tanks and soldiers if necessary (per your ranting) when he does the same?

You're way off on this one.

And the Obama administration has been pretty overt about announcing which laws they are choosing not to enforce. That's the main difference as I see it.
 

SLC Flyfishing

Suspended
Nov 19, 2007
1,486
1,639
Portland, OR
Yeah, that's not exactly where I was going with that comment. I was more pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing and their hatred of "welfare queens".
I'll bet you never saw that coming, did you? :D

The right wing may not approve of "welfare queens" but I don't think you'll find them claiming they're doing anything illegal. You certainly will see them rail against the idea of giving welfare to illegal immigrants.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.