DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Nevada ranching family claims victory as government releases cattle

j/c I have very mixed feelings in this situation. BLM lands are "pay to graze", and have been since 1934. Bundy owes the government money for grazing cattle on them, period. He's been to court over this and lost his case and the appeal. Cattle grazing on federal land is regulated to minimize environmental damage, and I don't like the precedent being set here. I don't think longevity gives someone a right to indefinitely use something that they don't own.

On the other hand, there are some seemingly shady dealings going on as to why the feds actually wanted to get Bundy's cattle off of that land. Also, the U.S. cattle herd is the smallest in 40 years, and the price of beef is through the roof right now.

Given that both sides are embellishing the unimportant elements of this situation and not addressing the real issues, I'm going to straddle the fence on this one.

The "Taylor Grazing Act" was enacted in 1934 to regulate grazing on federal lands, and that's what I was referring to.



Taylor Grazing Act of 1934

Both sides are wrong.

The rancher is making money from that land and he needs to pay for it. He lost in court, he lost his appeal, it's the law, pay up.

The governments heavy handed tactics are deplorable. Sue him and put a lien on his property, just like a private citizen could do.

Like haha funny or snarky?

L ike haha funny or a snarky funny ?

Haha funny.

The poster came off like a satire of a fired up, uninformed AM radio caller.

just clicking.....Anyone thinking this has anything to do with turtles is fooling themselves...

It isn't about fracking either as that stuff is going on in a completely different part of the state....

However, More and More continues to pop up concerning Harry Reid, his son, as well as this Chinese Energy company and the building of a solar plant...

The person writing the following article is more anti govt. ( as in our current govt.) rather than GOP or DEM. He attacks both sides of the aisle often. This time it seems to go against Harry Reid....

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

The second article also talks about how Harry has had corruption investigations against him by the FBI stopped by the Dept. of Justice.
http://scgnews.com/brazen-harry-reid-vow...orruption-probe

Some may call the people writing these conspiracy theorists...However they do have some points....Take them for what they are which is some added information. Something that I think warrants more investigation at least....

Fairly difficult to have some fair investigation when someone can stop it with a call to someone in the DoJ.

It's still Harry Reid's fault.

whats so uninformed about it? The true uninformed are the morons that vote for REED, seems to me that u are trying to mislead from the true charactor of Reed, but i hope im wrong

Na, you do not have to go on, you made your point loud an clear that Mr. Reid is your kind of guy . Hmmmm, a.m. radio callin moron I might give it a try at least i cant misspell what i am saying as to my opinionion.

Battle lines hardening in Nevada cattle rancher standoff with feds

By John M. Glionna

2:39 PM PDT, April 21, 2014

The battle lines are hardening in Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's so-called range war against the federal government over his right to graze cattle on public lands.

Arguments have moved from the Nevada desert to the nation’s capital, where Nevada's two U.S. senators, Republican Dean Heller and Democrat Harry Reid, recently faced off on a television public affairs show in Las Vegas.

Heller described Bundy's cadre of armed supporters as “patriots” during the show, "What's the Point," on KSNV-TV News 3. Reid repeated his claim that the so-called militia men are “domestic terrorists.”

Officials from the Bureau of Land Management say Bundy is illegally running hundreds of head of cattle in the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area, habitat of the federally protected desert tortoise. Bundy, 68, has refused to pay BLM grazing fees since 1993, arguing in court filings that his Mormon ancestors worked the land long before the BLM was formed, giving him rights that predate federal involvement. For years, he has threatened to forcefully protect his cattle.

Federal officials moved in to remove the animals, but called off the roundup nine days ago, saying they wanted to avoid violence, a specter presented when dozens of supporters - many armed with rifles and automatic weapons - gathered at the Bundy ranch 90 miles north of Las Vegas.

For now, the standoff has remained a war of words, with Bundy seen as a modern folk hero among free-speech advocates and others who believe that the federal government has no right to tell a Nevada rancher how to run his cattle on state land. Environmentalists call Bundy an illegal squatter.

In the television interview, Heller called for a Senate hearing on the dispute.

For his part, Reid appeared to get testy when asked on the show to explain his remark. “Just what I said,” he responded tersely.

Heller then prompted another face-off, saying, "What Sen. Reid may call domestic terrorists, I call patriots," Heller said. "We have a very different view on this."

"If they are patriots, we are in trouble," Reid shot back, criticizing the supporters for showing up with assault weapons and boasting about putting children in the front of the pack.

Heller says the BLM amped tensions in the long-simmering dispute over Bundy’s cattle by dispatching armed officials to help round up the animals. "I want to talk about the fact that they have this kind of authority and the ability to bully and come in with 200 armed men into a situation like this," he said.

Reid replied that the armed supporters were breaking federal laws: "These characters walk around with their Constitution in their pocket. They should read the Nevada Constitution.”

Reid refused to speculate what will happen next. “I don't think it is going to be tomorrow that something is going to happen, but something will happen.”

The government has said the cattle roundup 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.

On his own blog, Bundy has posted the creed of a national militia movement that has come to his support. Over the weekend, he also posted pictures of cattle that had been killed and buried during the BLM collection earlier this month.

“Digging up 1 of the HUGE holes where they threw the cows that they had ran to death or shot,” reads a website caption under the picture of a bulldozer removing an animal carcass. “I feel that this NEEDS to be put out for the public to see.”

Bundy says he has as much right to graze his cattle on public lands as those who hike, camp – or even advocate the protection of the threatened desert tortoise and other wildlife.

For years Bundy has insisted that his cattle aren't going anywhere. He acknowledges that he keeps firearms at his ranch, 80 miles north of Las Vegas, and has vowed to do "whatever it takes" to defend his animals from seizure.

"I've got to protect my property," he has told The Times. "If people come to monkey with what's mine, I'll call the county sheriff. If that don't work, I'll gather my friends and kids and we'll try to stop it. I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws."

But environmentalists said Monday that his actions set a bad precedent.

“It’s not just about the desert tortoise. The precedent this sets is dangerous – to let people like Bundy have free rein over public lands,” said Ken Cole, National Environmental Policy Act coordinator for the nonprofit Western Watershed Project, to the Los Angeles Times.

“It’s very clear that these public lands are not his. Under a public trust doctrine, the BLM and National Park Service manage these lands for the American people."

To add more along the same lines as the post above.

‘I blame both sides,’ Oklahoma militia members join fight with feds

Posted on: 6:18 pm, April 20, 2014, by Andrew Donley, updated on: 08:02pm, April 20, 2014

OKLAHOMA CITY - A land dispute in Nevada between rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government began decades ago.

The Bureau of Land Management says Bundy was allowing his cattle to graze illegally which triggered a round-up of about 400 head of cattle last week.

Bundy claims his family’s cattle have grazed on the land since 1870 without interference from the government.

However, the Bureau of Land Management says Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees since 1993.

Over time, officials say those fees have amounted to more than $1 million.

As authorities herded the cattle, a standoff was sparked with members of the militia.

Organizers with the Oklahoma Militia say they have members in Nevada who claim Bundy’s cattle were unlawfully herded by the bureau.

The Oklahoma Militia says it is made up of nearly 50,000 volunteers.

Members say they are taking Bundy’s side and fear this practice could spread to the Sooner State.

Scott Shaw said, “Evidently in America we don’t actually own the property anymore if you ever did.”

Shaw says Oklahoma Militia members are ready to take up arms against the federal government if needed.

He said, “It’s up to the feds. The ball’s in their court! You can do this legally or if you want to try to do a land grab violently, you can do that. We’re going to resist you!”

Shaw says the militia has not had to defend Oklahoma from the government yet but members are becoming concerned.

Shaw said, “Just look around the country, they are doing it everywhere. If they can do it in Nevada, they can do it in Colorado, Texas. I mean, what’s to stop them from coming to Oklahoma? The only thing to stop them is ‘We the People’.”

However, not everyone agrees.

Sen. Jim Inhofe said, “You’ve got a bunch of people there trying to take the law into their own hands and they shouldn’t be doing that. And the Bureau of Land Management is not government-owned, it’s publicly owned. There’s a big difference there. I blame both sides.”

The Bureau of Land Management released the cattle after confiscating them.

Quote:

---

Heller described Bundy's cadre of armed supporters as “patriots” during the show, "What's the Point," on KSNV-TV News 3. Reid repeated his claim that the so-called militia men are “domestic terrorists.”

---

And therein lies the problem with our government. Regardless of which side you are on, most people see shades of gray in this situation and see areas where both sides are probably not acting appropriately... but in the Senate, if you have a D or an R behind your name, you must pick a side, assign a label like "Patriot" or "Domestic Terrorist", and work to inflame the situation. Is it there intent to inflame the situation? Do they even realize how much they are inflaming the situation by applying those types of labels? I think they do, I think it's intentional. The words "Patriot" and "Terrorist" are so politically charged that I can't fathom for a second that there use isn't completely politically calculated to stir up emotion, rather than logic, in those who hear and support them.

Quote:

---

... but in the Senate, if you have a D or an R behind your name, you must pick a side, assign a label like "Patriot" or "Domestic Terrorist", and work to inflame the situation. Is it there intent to inflame the situation? Do they even realize how much they are inflaming the situation by applying those types of labels? I think they do, I think it's intentional.

---

That is what politics has become in this country. Play on emotionally charged but relatively meaningless issues to divert the focus from the loss of freedom and the economic devastation being wrought by the political machinery.

Quote:

---

For some, I guess it depends on which country you live in. A terrorist in Syria may be a 'freedom fighter' but someone fighting for freedom in the USA is called a 'terrorist'.

---

I would say it's even a little broader than that... do you agree with the government? If you agree with the government then those who seek to defend themselves from the government are terrorists, if you do not agree with the government, then you see them as patriots or freedom fighters. I'm sure Syrians and Ukrainians view it the same, some agree with the government and some do not and they see their own internal conflicts in much the same way we view this.

I just find them all to be 'crazies.'

This is what I mean: we may or may not agree with the rancher's stance; we may or may not agree with the govt's position...

...but these people are congregating at a standoff site armed to the teeth!





There have been many different POV's here at DT... but we sane folk are watching it all unfold on TV- that's the main difference.

Militia? Terrorists? I don't care what label is attached, I don't want to be within 10 miles of these folks- even if I might think they have a poltical view worthy of consideration....

Who called them terrorists?

ok.... thank you , i didnt know that but it figures.

JC

Do you begin to cry when someone mislabels your militia movement as "terroristic"? If so, you may be a fan of Political Correctness!

http://news.yahoo.com/jon-stewart-tries-figure-cliven-bundy-mess-131523043.html

I really like Jon's take on this....

I can only imagine what they'd have been called if they were black men.

I also wonder why a group of over compensating dudes brandishing their expensive man toys and calling themselves a militia, while proudly stating they would have their women stand in front, aren't taking their ego toys to someplace like Afghanistan or the Ukraine.

Quote:

---

I also wonder why a group of over compensating dudes brandishing their expensive man toys and calling themselves a militia, while proudly stating they would have their women stand in front, aren't taking their ego toys to someplace like Afghanistan or the Ukraine.

---

Well if you want to use the "there's always a bigger badder fight out there" then why is the federal government devoting all of these resources to hitting up a rancher for a measly million dollars in fines when the debt is at $17 trillion and counting? Don't they have something more important to do?