Just another guy freeloading off the govt. What does he think will happen when he does not pay the rent?
From the link:
The BLM has asserted its right to protect the land, which Bundy says his family has owned and ranched since 1870, well before the BLM was created in 1946.
The federal agency says the rancher owes $1 million in unpaid fees, while Bundy contends the debt is closer to $300,000.
[quote]genuine random a hole wrote:
Just another guy freeloading off the govt. What does he think will happen when he does not pay the rent?
[/quote
This is not rent. He owns the land. Its his land, not the governments. If this was in city limits he might be obligated to a property tax.
There is absolutely NO reason that the land management people should be armed. even the ones near the border. All these guys do is put up fences.
Lets say some runner was jogging in the beautiful American west, the land management employee could murder him just because he didn't see the fence or because that area wasn't fenced. This has happened several times recently in Albuquerque and its getting worse.
Don't turn this into a liberal vs conservative issue. The land belongs to all of us. Man belongs to mother earth. Not the other way around. There will soon be a day when runners have absolutely NO land to run on because everything is either private property of government/military land.
[quote]trackstar44 wrote:
[quote]genuine random a hole wrote:
Just another guy freeloading off the govt. What does he think will happen when he does not pay the rent?
[/quote
This is not rent. He owns the land. Its his land, not the governments. If this was in city limits he might be obligated to a property tax.
[quote]
No, you are completely wrong.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nevada-rancher-threatens-range-war-feds/story?id=23225314
Bundy's beef with federal land management officials dates back to 1993, according to federal officials, when Bundy's allotment for grazing his cattle on public land was modified to include protections for the desert tortoise. Bundy, who told the Associated Press his family has been ranching this part of Nevada since the 1870s, did not accept the modified terms, and continued to let his cattle graze anyway.
After legal maneuverings on both sides, a Nevada district court judge in 2013 permanently enjoined Bundy's cattle (some 900, by the government's count) from grazing on public property. The judge reiterated that decision in 2013 and authorized the U.S. government to impound the cattle.
The system works like this. Over 90% of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government, and it's been that way for nearly 200 years. Ranchers own private tracts and lease rights to graze livestock on the federal lands. To maintain these leases they must abide by various environmental clauses, primarily to ensure sustainability of the land and to prevent overgrazing or habitat degradation of threatened or endangered species.
These lands are habitat of the endangered desert tortoise. Grazing can harm tortoise habitat. So in the early 1990s the feds renewed the lease and as part of that agreement, the rancher had to cut back on the number of cattle he had on the (federal) lands. He refused to sign this lease and for 20 year has been putting his cattle on those lands. Thus, HE is the one in trespass.
Looks like this ruling has been upheld in court. That gives the government the right and responsibility to remove the cattle from its lands.
he owns 120 acres. Nobody is disputing that he owns that land. However, his cattle are on a thousands of acres of public land. To bring your cattle onto this land to graze, you have to pay grazing fees. For anybody in this business, you know that these grazing fees are extremely small.
This is why it is economically feasible to make money grazing cattle on BLM land, because the overhead is extremely small and you basically just end up with a herd of semi-wild cattle that you go and gather up once a year to sell. Your costs are almost nothing besides the grazing fees. These grazing fees are a nominal charge to pay for the administration of this land and to pay for studies to ensure OUR land that belongs to all of us is not being unreasonably affected by the cattle grazing. This program is set up in a way that is extremely favorable to the ranchers and unfavorable to hikers, backpackers, etc.
But this guy wants it to be free, because he was using this public land for free grazing before the BLM was created. The fact that the BLM now charges a small fee (and has for the entirety of his lifetime) to graze cattle on land that doesn't belong to him doesn't make it an infringement on his freedom.
He is trampling on everybody else's rights, by not paying the American public and the American people what is owed to them for him using land that belongs to everybody to make a profit. Don't forget, this guy is making a lot of money off of using land that belong to all of America but wants to do so for free. He is freely admitting that he owes this money, yet he should be allowed to continue to rip off you and me and everybody else in America? What blows my mind is that people are standing beside him.
If somebody more directly was stealing from you in a more traditional fashion, you would expect the government to go after that person. This is no different.
If an oil company was refusing to pay for mineral rights to pump oil that belongs to the American people, we would expect the government to go after them for us.
If a logging company was refusing to pay for the trees it was cutting on BLM land, which belongs to the American people, we would expect the government to go after them for us.
If a cattle rancher was refusing to pay for the grazing use on public lands, we should expect the same treatment.
His banner makes no sense, but whatever. These "standoffs" have occurred in the past when the government exercises its right to reclaimed land, and the ranchers always back down and/or lose.
The fun thing about this is that it is identical to the classic law and economics problem of the "commons". If everyone is allowed to freely graze their flocks/herds on the land, the land will eventually go barren as there is nothing stopping anyone from over grazing and everyone will want to maximize their profit. Thus, the conservative law and economics movement concludes that the best way to deal with the "commons" is to have everyone buy the land they need for grazing so they can manage their land and exclude others. Rational maximizers will make sure that they do not over graze the land.
This guy owns a measly 120 acres. When grazing cattle in Nevada, you need thousands of acres. Vegetation is scant. Cattle have to keep moving to allow the vegetation to recover after grazing. This guy would never be able to afford to buy all the land needed for his cattle. The only reason he is in business is because he has been able to get a great deal to use government land for grazing (no property taxes, no fences, no worries about trespassing on other ranches, etc.). He just flipped out when his grazing deal went from a great deal to a very good deal. Now he and his family and friends are making violent threats against the government, causing the show of force against him.
The fact that he is held out as a symbol of conservative values is silly when his business has benefitted greatly from a socialist model of sharing resources.
Didn't see where anyone got shot.....I am sure the rancher will produce the deed to the 600 acres of land he claims his family owns and all will be good in the wild west again...
i told yall this was coming wrote:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nevada-rancher-tense-standoff-federal-government-article-1.1751348
Didn't see where anyone got shot.....I am sure the rancher will produce the deed to the 600 acres of land he claims his family owns and all will be good in the wild west again...
i told yall this was coming wrote:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nevada-rancher-tense-standoff-federal-government-article-1.1751348
I automatically side with the private property rather than the govt side of a dispute and was prepared to take up for this guy. But when I actually checked it out, he's the one taking advantage of the govt. The govt is not intruding.
It is sad for his family that what they've been doing for generations will no longer work, but stuff happens.
I've dealt with this on a professional level with farmers who farmed federal flood plain land below a managed reservoir. Changes in water management and policy flooded their fields, but it was never their land and it was a known risk. It is sincerely sad for them, but like I said, it's a risk and you don't have a right to have the advantageous situation of the past last forever.
Google it on wrote:
[quote]trackstar44 wrote:
[quote]genuine random a hole wrote:
Just another guy freeloading off the govt. What does he think will happen when he does not pay the rent?
[/quote
This is not rent. He owns the land. Its his land, not the governments. If this was in city limits he might be obligated to a property tax.
[quote]
No, you are completely wrong.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nevada-rancher-threatens-range-war-feds/story?id=23225314Bundy's beef with federal land management officials dates back to 1993, according to federal officials, when Bundy's allotment for grazing his cattle on public land was modified to include protections for the desert tortoise. Bundy, who told the Associated Press his family has been ranching this part of Nevada since the 1870s, did not accept the modified terms, and continued to let his cattle graze anyway.
After legal maneuverings on both sides, a Nevada district court judge in 2013 permanently enjoined Bundy's cattle (some 900, by the government's count) from grazing on public property. The judge reiterated that decision in 2013 and authorized the U.S. government to impound the cattle.
The system works like this. Over 90% of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government, and it's been that way for nearly 200 years. Ranchers own private tracts and lease rights to graze livestock on the federal lands. To maintain these leases they must abide by various environmental clauses, primarily to ensure sustainability of the land and to prevent overgrazing or habitat degradation of threatened or endangered species.
These lands are habitat of the endangered desert tortoise. Grazing can harm tortoise habitat. So in the early 1990s the feds renewed the lease and as part of that agreement, the rancher had to cut back on the number of cattle he had on the (federal) lands. He refused to sign this lease and for 20 year has been putting his cattle on those lands. Thus, HE is the one in trespass.
Looks like this ruling has been upheld in court. That gives the government the right and responsibility to remove the cattle from its lands.
well of course, comrades! If the govt says it is so and the govt court confirms what the govt says, then it is so! Doesn't matter what we serfs & subjects have to say. Doesn't matter that the govt already owns millions & millions of acres & is using your tax $$ to buy more... Not like the govt exists in limited form to secure our inalienable rights. What do you think this is - some sort of Republic? Tortoises > citizens all day, baby
I had the pleasure of working in the Gold Butte area of Nevada for a short time and heard the name of this Bundy guy tossed around. He has been a long-time nuisance with a complete disrespect of environmental laws and individuals. Many unassuming individuals have been subject to his rage, which probably results from the lack of love and compassion in his life more than anything.
In many parts of Nevada, many people have a deep distrust of the federal government for legitimate and misguided reasons, and unreasonably take their anger out of individual employees that are simply trying to do their jobs. Considering the situations that BLM employees may find themselves in when they are doing something as innocuous like investigating prehistoric artifacts, I see no problem with them carrying firearms. You have to understand what sort of people that BLM meets in these very remote areas.
vivalarepublica wrote:
You have to understand what sort of people that BLM meets in these very remote areas.
Like Heisenberg!
So another moocher off the federal teet can't mooch any more because of a turtle.
Like I care.
jeffrey d. boomhauer wrote:
What do you think this is - some sort of Republic? Tortoises > citizens all day, baby
Your inability to grasp even the most simple of concepts is a consistent source of amusement.
It is not his land. He is past due on the rent, ($300k by his own admission) he was not abiding by the terms of the lease.
I'll make this easy for you JeffyBoom. Pretend he is dark skinned and got an extra $10 of food stamps. Now do you get it?
More whites on food stamp rolls:
http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Race.jpg
This is a wealthy rancher (millions) that doesn't want to pay for the free feed his cattle get.
Simple case of greed, he's just using the patriot angle to garner sympathy.
Just a bit of US Western history, when one rancher let his cattle graze on another ranchers land and didn't pay for it in some way it would cause a sh*tstorm.
It is stealing, plan and simple theft.
numbers wrote:
More whites on food stamp rolls:
http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Race.jpg
Nearly every wealthy white person is on some form of welfare as well.
jeffrey d. boomhauer wrote:
well of course, comrades! If the govt says it is so and the govt court confirms what the govt says, then it is so! Doesn't matter what we serfs & subjects have to say. Doesn't matter that the govt already owns millions & millions of acres & is using your tax $$ to buy more... Not like the govt exists in limited form to secure our inalienable rights. What do you think this is - some sort of Republic? Tortoises > citizens all day, baby
Laughable.
Actually Nevada hecho in Mehico. Signed over as part of the Utah territory in 1848. The government did not take any land from this or these ranchers. In fact, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries the government gave them land or provided it cheap. And the ranchers had free reign, free grazing, until the the 1930s when the Grazing Act was passed.
The fee for grazing is $1.35/animial unit month. That is the rancher is charged $1.35 for one animal to graze for one month. So if this guy has 900 head, that's $1,215 per month. That's less than the rent for three college dunderheads at an off campus slum apartment. It's dirt cheap. He didn't follow the rules of the lease and hasn't paid rent in 20 years. If you do the math that comes out to just about $300,000, without interest.
You're no doubt a free market law and order type. If students in your town signed a lease that said their apartment was for 3 people, but they started rooming 6 or 12 without paying for clean up, utilities, or maintenance at the apartment, and stopped paying rent--you'd probably be the first in the line of vigilantes to have them evicted, tarred, feathered, and burned at the stake. Can't be too careful, might even be a lib or 2 amongst the squaters.
Right.
