Nevadan Farmer not allowed to use public land for his grazing cattle

[TenEightyOne]

I'll be following this one. I tend to side with the Federal enforcement, but I feel like a total idiot on this one, because I have no idea who, or if either party's completely in the right. I am however amazed how the Government pick & choose when to send an Army(figure of speech) to enforce the law, or just look the other way & act as though the problem absolutely does not exist.

Regardless of who's in the right, great post @FoolKiller. 👍

I'll second that, I can only comment on the basis of the info in the OP and the ABC article linked later on so I'll go no further

 

[Enemem]

Do you know what kind of damage cows do to the land?

They can strip the land of every single blade of grass and pretty much make it so nothing grows again by compacting the soil down

Yes and they've been doing it since the 1800's on this part of the land. Of course, since there's no grass left, the cattle are starving, so that's a really good point.👍

Difficult to figure out who's in the right on this one, isn't it?

And maybe I'm always on the side of the underdog, but hey, the other side doesn't need any help. It's got its minions in here.

 

[Grayfox]

Yes and they've been doing it since the 1800's on this part of the land. Of course, since there's no grass left, the cattle are starving, so that's a really good point.👍

Difficult to figure out who's in the right on this one, isn't it?

And maybe I'm always on the side of the underdog, but hey, the other side doesn't need any help. It's got its minions in here.

Feds are in the right.

Public land is for everyone.
Meaning if you want to have a stroll though that field last thing you want it to have the smell of cows and step in a paddy because some farmer thinks he can let his cows loose on it.
The roads are public yet you cant do what you want on them like drag racing even if the road you are doing it on is fully closed off and no one will get hurt as it is still illegal.

If his land cant sustain the cows he was two options that I think of at the moment.

Change professions where you can still get a good income without worrying about your animals.
Change type of live stock to something that does less damage to the land.

 

[Enemem]

Feds are in the right.

Public land is for everyone.

Except cows.

Meaning if you want to have a stroll though that field last thing you want it to have the smell of cows and step in a paddy because some farmer thinks he can let his cows loose on it.
The roads are public yet you cant do what you want on them like drag racing even if the road you are doing it on is fully closed off and no one will get hurt as it is still illegal.

If his land cant sustain the cows he was two options that I think of at the moment.
Change professions where you can still get a good income without worrying about your animals.
Change type of live stock to something that does less damage to the land.

Or leave the country. Or fight for his rights. Or stand as sheriff.

Errr... as you well know, it's not about the cattle destroying the land for the tortoises. It's about non-payment of taxes.

Or is it about power?

http://misguidedchildren.com/domest...eize-90000-acres-of-texas-ranchers-land/18596

In Texas, strangely enough, unless the boundaries get redrawn

The taking of property from land owners, the stealing of cattle, all of these things are apparently the modus operandi of the Bureau of Land Management. There are no tortoises involved in this incident, just land-grabbing feds who are intent to take away the property of ranchers that have owned it for hundreds of years. Will it come to armed confrontation as is occurring in Nevada? We don’t know.

Open grazing of cattle has always been a common law right in America.

http://m.shalereporter.com/industry/article_0de547ba-8ca4-11e2-ab4e-0019bb30f31a.html

RENO, Nev. (AP) — Buyers snapped up 29 federal land leases totaling more than 56 square miles in a northeastern Nevada area.

This could become the state's first oil shale fracking site.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management geologist Lorenzo Trimble tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal the Elko County oil and gas leases sold Tuesday for $1.27 million to six different companies.

The auction took place in Reno. The leases are near where Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. wants to drill for oil and natural gas on 40,000 acres of public and private land near the town of Wells.

The Review-Journal reports the project would be the first in Nevada to use hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract oil and gas from shale deposits.

The BLM is conducting an environmental review of Noble's proposal.

 

[niky]

From the link given therein:

http://famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/comgraz.html

an implied license, growing out of the custom of nearly a hundred years that the public lands of the United States, especially those in which the native grasses are adapted to the growth and fattening of domestic animals, shall be free to the people who seek to use them where they are left open and unenclosed and no act of government forbids this use..

Common law rights are implied as given only in absence of government censure of such use. Relabelling a portion of that public land as protected due to environmental concerns is an act of government forbidding its use.

During the time the settler was perfecting his title...both he and all other persons who desired to do so had full liberty to graze their stock upon the grasses of the prairies and upon other nutritious substances found upon the soil."

And these rights were extended in the understanding that the settlers would eventually purchase the land or were in the process of claiming a title. As such:

http://misguidedchildren.com/domest...eize-90000-acres-of-texas-ranchers-land/18596

Would be illegal if the ranchers do have legitimate titles, because they own the land, and any reapportioning of the land means that the government must pay them. If this report is true, I would be on those ranchers' side.

-----

Common law use is similar to how it's practiced here, actually. And we have the same issues, when people who have been allowed to use public land are eventually moved off of it, they claim common law rights, despite not having purchased the land or claimed legal title to it.

And sometimes, these people claim it on land that is privately owned by someone else. Do they then also have the rights to free use of this land when the original owner objects?

And if they don't, what's the difference between private citizens and the government, and why can one protect their legal property while another can't?

Also:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...standoff-federal-government-article-1.1751348

The federal agency says the rancher owes $1 million in unpaid fees, while Bundy contends the debt is closer to $300,000.

The Fact that Bundy admits that there are fees that he is paying or has forgotten to pay, and that he acknowledges he has the obligation to pay these fees implies a tacit admission that he is using the land by license or permission, and does not own it.

Whatever the behaviour of the Federal government here is, do note that they only act against the Bundy family when they are on the disputed land. Not when they are on their private property. It's difficult to ascertain whether there are abuses being committed (wouldn't be surprising if there were), and these abuses would be reprehensible if they were true, but in strictly legal terms, considering the case has gone to court and the Bundy family has lost, the government now has the right to take action.

Protesters may express their disatisfaction, but to prevent Federal employees from performing their duties under law is a crime. This makes the BLM's response all the more difficult, and makes them appear to be the bad guys, which is what Bundy wants, but in the end, this case has been going on for twenty years, he owes them some money, they own the land, and they're pulling the plug. End of story.

 

[BobK]

The Feds are doing a great job of showing just how every law is done at gunpoint.
....
Ultimately, I don't know whether Bundy is right or wrong regarding the land disputes. What I do know is that showing up with an armed force, including snipers, tasers, and K-9 units is a large intimidation tactic that goes far beyond what is necessary. This shows just how much our government has stopped trying to hide the fact that whatever they say is enforced at gunpoint. A land dispute requires this kind of response? At this point, I want Bundy to win just because, as Captain America says, "I don't like bullies; I don't care where they're from." And also, "This isn't freedom. This is fear."
....
This is a warning to everyone. If you have a disagreement with the government and stand up to them because you believe your rights are being violated, you just might find yourself in a sniper rifle's scope.

If this goes Waco, at this point I believe it is the government's fault for using over zealous tactics. I bet a simple arrest or detainment of Bundy, while removing the cattle, could have made all this go smoother. They have grounds, as he supposedly violated a court order. Instead, they show up in mass, loaded with weapons, and use behavior that very well may have turned a handful of protesting neighbors into a slowly growing militia.

I couldn't agree more. As I see it Bundy is completely in the wrong legally, but the massive armed over-reaction of the government has me rooting for him.

 

[FoolKiller]

Protesters may express their disatisfaction, but to prevent Federal employees from performing their duties under law is a crime. This makes the BLM's response all the more difficult, and makes them appear to be the bad guys, which is what Bundy wants, but in the end, this case has been going on for twenty years, he owes them some money, they own the land, and they're pulling the plug. End of story.

Are you justifying a government use of potential snipers, throwing women to the ground, tasering a man three times after he backed up, and threatening a pregnant woman with a dog?

They look like the bad guys because they are acting like crazed dictators. Watch the video. Who was the aggressor? Which protestor had a weapon to justify the use of force? Why did they have multiple K-9 units already on hand? If the protestors are preventing the Feds from doing their jobs, illegally, why was no one arrested? The only arrest to date has been Bundy's son from a previous incident involving him refusing to leave the closed land. And why are protestors only allowed in a small, fenced-in area nearly five miles away?

And why are state officials also accusing the Feds of going overboard? It's not just the governor. Nevada Senator Dean Heller has spoken out and personally told the BLM chief they are going too far.

The government looks like bad guys because 20 years ago they weren't allowed to act like this. The more they do it the more protestors will show up, and they know it. They are causing a Waco situation of their own making.


You say the government has the right to take action. Legally, that is true. But so is the right of US citizens to protest government action. Civil disobedience went a huge way toward making changes in this country. Be careful about justifying government reaction to it.

 

[niky]

For proven cases of over-reaching and outright overkill, the people on the ground should definitely be given administrative sanctions.
We can only see the evidence provided, be nice if we have a video that shows a closer view of the tasering.

As according to this story here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...er-pro-nevada-rancher-protester-during-clash/

The tasering occurred when one of the protesters (apparently Bundy's son), hit one of the service vehicles with his ATV in an attempt to block it. As can be seen in the video, the ATV and the vehicle have indeed collided, though the video does not show who hit who.

This is where the escalation begins.

There is protesting, which is protected by right, and then there is obstruction, which is not.

I do agree, that the implied threat of snipers, and the tasering itself were overboard. But there are always three sides to the story, and the muddled truth is often somewhere in-between.

The question of who is right will depend on who has the better claim, rather than who is in a position of power and who is not.

Again, mind you, if this thing hadn't been in litigation for the past twenty years and there wasn't a court order, I would have more sympathy, but the Bundy family are at the very least partly responsible for the escalation of tension here.

I've seen my fair share of government-protester violence. I've had shots and tear gas fired in my general direction in times past (though most protests I've joined have been fairly peaceful... even if there are people who go simply to stir up trouble). And, from that experience, I can tell you that blame is very hard to apportion... there are dirty tactics played on both sides, and there is hardly ever an impartial observer to referee.

 

[FoolKiller]

For proven cases of over-reaching and outright overkill, the people on the ground should definitely be given administrative sanctions.
We can only see the evidence provided, be nice if we have a video that shows a closer view of the tasering.

Lots of people would like that, including cameras worn by law enforcement. But law enforcement opposes it, arrests people for filming, and intimidates those in places where courts upheld citizens' right to record them. I wonder why police don't fully record themselves, as legal protection?

Maybe the fact that districts that have made law enforcement wear cameras have a large decrease in police shootings tells a story?

As according to this story here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...er-pro-nevada-rancher-protester-during-clash/

The tasering occurred when one of the protesters (apparently Bundy's son), hit one of the service vehicles with his ATV in an attempt to block it. As can be seen in the video, the ATV and the vehicle have indeed collided, though the video does not show who hit who.

So say the guys accused of abuse. They also said the protestors actions are dangerous and illegal. But no arrests?

This is where the escalation begins.

Watch the video again. Look at the ground near the beginning. You can see the woman who claims to have been tackled lying on the ground. That is what started the escalation.

The only reason the protestors claimed to have tried to stop the trucks was because a dump truck and front loader are not necessary for cattle removal. They had a legitimate demand.

There is protesting, which is protected by right, and then there is obstruction, which is not.

I'll say it again. Civil disobedience righted a number of wrongs. If the law supports violating your rights then sometimes you have to sit at the counter anyway.

I've seen my fair share of government-protester violence. I've had shots and tear gas fired in my general direction in times past (though most protests I've joined have been fairly peaceful... even if there are people who go simply to stir up trouble). And, from that experience, I can tell you that blame is very hard to apportion... there are dirty tactics played on both sides, and there is hardly ever an impartial observer to referee.

The use of force must be justified. They claim illegal activity. Then fail to arrest or charge anyone. Tasering a man for blocking a truck is not justification. Attacking an officer, resisting arrest, etc are justified actions. But that should end in an arrest. Are they willing to use physical force, but then use compassion?

I do agree, that the implied threat of snipers, and the tasering itself were overboard. But there are always three sides to the story, and the muddled truth is often somewhere in-between.

The question of who is right will depend on who has the better claim, rather than who is in a position of power and who is not.

Again, mind you, if this thing hadn't been in litigation for the past twenty years and there wasn't a court order, I would have more sympathy, but the Bundy family are at the very least partly responsible for the escalation of tension here.

Regarding who is right. I found an interesting tidbit from the Constitution regarding Federal government claiming land from states.

Article I, Section 8.17

Clause 17

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

If I read that correctly, the BLM acted unconstitutional to claim 600,000 acres (937.5 sq miles) as their jurisdiction. The state has to willingly sell it to the Feds, and it cannot exceed 10 sq miles and must be for needful buildings.

Also, the Bundy support is growing big now, and the BLM took down their 1st Amendment corrals.

http://m.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/bundy-vs-blm-interest-cattle-dispute-widens

The Bureau of Land Management quietly dismantled its so-called “First Amendment areas” in northeastern Clark County on Thursday, as the fight over Cliven Bundy’s cattle widened into a national debate about states’ rights and federal land-use policy.

State lawmakers from Arizona to Washington are headed for Nevada to rally alongside the Bundy family and its supporters. Most of them are tea party Republicans or Libertarians associated with a patriot group known as the Oath Keepers.

Several of the elected officials said they were drawn into the issue by video footage of Wednesday’s clash between angry protesters and BLM rangers that shows Bundy’s sister being tackled to the ground and one of Bundy’s seven sons being shot with a stun gun.

“Watching that video last night created a visceral reaction in me,” said Arizona Rep. Kelly Townsend, a tea party Republican who is driving up from Phoenix to take part in a rally with lawmakers and Oath Keepers near the Bundy ranch Monday. “It sounds dramatic, but it reminded me of Tiananmen Square. I don’t recognize my country at this point.”

Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, R-Las Vegas, called the footage “horrifying.” The pro-gun lawmaker has made two trips to the Bunkerville area in the past two days so she could meet with protesters, “protect our Nevadans and keep the peace.”

“I’m highly offended by the feds coming in as aggressively as they have,” Fiore said.

Federal officials have said the large law enforcement presence and high level of security come in response to direct and indirect threats of violence made by Bundy family members and others.

Before the federal roundup of Bundy’s livestock began, the BLM set up two orange plastic pens as rallying points for demonstrators wanting to protest the ongoing operation on federal land 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. The move drew criticism from elected leaders and others. In a statement Tuesday, Gov. Brian Sandoval said the First Amendment areas were “offensive” and called on the agency to remove them.

During a conference call with reporters Thursday afternoon, Amy Lueders, state director for the BLM in Nevada, said the agency heard the governor’s concerns and “made some adjustments” to address them.

“We are allowing people to congregate on public land as long as they don’t inhibit the operation,” she said.

Bunkerville resident Jim Olson lives across the street from where one of the First Amendment areas was set up. He said it reminded him of East Berlin during the Cold War, and he was glad to see a crew of BLM firefighters take it down Thursday morning.

“It took five minutes. They hooked a truck onto it, and bing, bang, boom the fence was gone,” Olson said. “Of course the publicity has just been horrid, and they (BLM officials) are not handling it very well.”

The Bundy family and its supporters have established their own rally area on private property along state Route 170 near the Virgin River. The “First Amendment areas” went largely unused, except as a repository for protest signs bearing slogans such as “1st Amendment isn’t an area” and “1st Amendment: Corralled like an animal.”

Almost 600,000 acres of public land has been temporarily closed to the public as more than 900 cattle are rounded up from a vast swath of mountains and desert where Bundy has left his livestock to roam even though he hasn’t paid federal grazing fees since 1993.

The BLM’s Lueders said the seizure of cattle on federal land was being done as a “last resort,” and there is only one person to blame for the situation.

“Mr. Bundy is breaking the law, and he has been breaking the law for 20 years,” she said. “He owes the taxpayers of the United States over $1 million.”

Townsend, the lawmaker from Arizona, said Bundy “may be in the wrong as far as the law is concerned,” but the way the roundup is being conducted is “un-American.”

She is part of a delegation of sympathetic state lawmakers, former law enforcement officers and military veterans who have been invited to stand with the Bundys and camp at their 160-acre ranch, with certain conditions.

On the Oath Keepers’ Facebook page, those planning to make the trip are instructed to bring cameras and “film everything” but not to wear military camouflage or openly carry rifles.

“Any rifles people may have with them need to stay in the vehicles,” the post says.

Gov. Sandoval is urging “all individuals who are near the situation to act with restraint.”

“Although tensions remain high, escalation of current events could have negative, long lasting consequences that can be avoided,” he said in a statement Thursday.

Think the BLM will taze or use dogs on politicians?


Speaking of the BLM, here is hidden cam footage of them discussing the Bundy farm.

 

[Keef]

I just read an article about this. Says something about Bundy claiming the land based on tradition.

Tradition doesn't cut it. Unless you've got some sort of boundary or deed that proves ownership, it's not yours. I'd love to support the guy's case but I don't see enough evidence to prove that he owns the land and the government is taking it illegally. If it's the State's land then that's another issue, a conflict between Federal and State. But the idea that he can use it based on tradition is bogus in my opinion.

I do however think that the government's actions and handling of the situation is pretty ridiculous. Totally unnecessary. Obviously there's a lot of money on the table for them.

 

[LeMansAid]

Captain America says, "I don't like bullies; I don't care where they're from."

Where does the bullying begin though? There would be a fair argument that before "The Feds" even come in to the picture that this guy and his business is very much bullying and utterly compromising an environment.

 

[BobK]

@Keef, nobody including Bundy is claiming that the Bundy family owns the land. The title of this thread is very misleading.

 

[Keef]

According to the article I read, Bundy is or at least was claiming he's got a right to use supposed public lands because his family has been doing it for generations, like some American Indian argument.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

According to the article I read, Bundy is or at least was claiming he's got a right to use supposed public lands because his family has been doing it for generations, like some American Indian argument.

Foolkiller already addressed that on the last page and even talked about about the homestead rights this guy think he has over the environment that is trying to be protected.

 

[FoolKiller]

Where does the bullying begin though? There would be a fair argument that before "The Feds" even come in to the picture that this guy and his business is very much bullying and utterly compromising an environment.

You can bully an environment? How?

Oh right, this new age version of bullying where just telling someone you don't like them or winning a sports event by a large margin is bullying.

Cows are such bullies. I mean, have you seen them with their testicle-free, roaming around, sad eyes? Horrible creatures, just being so mean to those turtles! And that fully justifies throwing women to the ground, tasing people multiple times, and threatening people with K-9 units without a single criminal charge.

Right or wrong, I don't think you'll see BLM using these tactics again. They might call in someone with more experience, but land management goons aren't ready for this.





Also, here is a news report that shows the woman being thrown down and a Nevada state assemblywoman staying her support of the protestors, and displeasure with the Feds.



I wonder how "the government says so, so it's right," or the "rights come from government," guys are wrapping their heads around this. You have different parts of government saying different things. I'm guessing it will breakdown to a might is right, so the Feds win scenario in their heads. Of course, that ignores state sovereignty and other parts of the US Constitution, such as Article I, Section 8.17 that I addressed earlier.



EDIT: I should have read the most recent news before posting.

Still developing, but the BLM is backing down and returning the cattle to Bundy.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25231...n-i15-causing-traffic-delays-cliven-bundy-blm

LAS VEGAS -- A deal has been reached between Bundy family leaders and the BLM, but not without some very tense moments.

Armed Bundy family leaders met with BLM officers Saturday afternoon in Mesquite to discuss the fate of the Bundy's cattle that the feds removed from BLM land, over the past week. The cattle are being held at a holding area in Mesquite.

Prior to the meeting, hundreds of protesters, some armed, tried storming the BLM's cattle gate, but weren't successful. The crowd was urged to wait 30 minutes and give both sides a chance to talk. An agreement was reached that the cattle will be released to the Bundy family later Saturday.

At one point, I-15 was closed in both directions, about seven miles south of Mesquite, because protesters had blocked the freeway. Nearly two dozen police officers and a SWAT unit were at the scene to keep the peace and assist the BLM enforcement officers to safely leave the area.

Protesters have been gathering all week in support of Bundy, who has been locked in a legal battle for the past 20 years over grazing rights with the federal government

It was announced Saturday morning that Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, Bundy and the BLM were able to reach an agreement over the cattle the BLM has already removed from the federal property.

The agency said it is concerned about the safety of its employees and the public. Earlier this week, BLM officers and supporters of the Bundy family were involved in a scuffle. Cliven Bundy's son, Ammon Bundy, was tased twice by federal agents. Another woman said she was thrown to the ground by an officer.

With more Bundy supporters pouring in from around the country, safety concerns began to grow.

Sheriff Gillespie has been negotiating with Bundy behind the scenes for months and reached a tentative agreement Friday night, though Bundy insisted the sheriff come to his ranch to finalize the arrangement face-to-face.

In its statement, the BLM said its actions this past week were progress in enforcing two court orders to remove the trespassing cattle from public land.

The agency director also asked that everyone involved in the dispute remain peaceful and law-abiding.

The BLM had offered to pay Bundy for the cattle already confiscated, sources said, but the protesters wanted the cattle returned to Bundy.

The BLM is claiming concerns over safety. Guess I was right about them not wanting to face militia.


EDIT2: My news reader has it all coming in right now.

Video of the announcement that the BLM is ceasing, reopening Gold Butte and "removing their assets."

 

[a6m5]

After reading & watching a few more stories on this, my sentiments stay about the same. I think the Federal Government is in the right, they also gave the rancher plenty of time to pay up the fees owed, but the rancher failed to do so.

My impression on the run-in has changed somewhat. I think the agents displayed composure, while protesters seemed near-hysteric, almost bating the agents to make a mistake. I do give them credit for not physically fighting back, however.

 

[FoolKiller]

The newest conspiracy theory on this, coming from Info Wars, so grain of salt here, is that yesterday documents were supposedly uncovered on the BLM's site that shows Henry Reid was pushing a solar plant that would affect Gold Butte and Bundy's cattle were in the way.

24 hours after the story was put out the BLM backed down.

Eh, I never take Info Wars serious, and read this yesterday but didn't post it for that reason. Now that the situation is over, here it is:

http://www.infowars.com/feds-back-down-from-bundy-siege-after-infowars-expose-of-chinese-land-grab/

 

[Gwenbors]

I'm a little curious about this whole thing. The Bundys claim they've been working the land since the 1880s, which means that the land has technically reverted to their ownership twice under federal law, right? First under the Homestead Act of 1868, then under a separate Homestead Act passed in 1909 for cattle ranching.

It's entirely possible they failed to fill out the proper paperwork, but seeing as how the BLM wasn't a thing until the mid 1940s, the Bundy attitude of "we were here first" kind of makes sense to me.

 

[Keef]

The newest conspiracy theory on this, coming from Info Wars, so grain of salt here, is that yesterday documents were supposedly uncovered on the BLM's site that shows Henry Reid was pushing a solar plant that would affect Gold Butte and Bundy's cattle were in the way.

24 hours after the story was put out the BLM backed down.

Eh, I never take Info Wars serious, and read this yesterday but didn't post it for that reason. Now that the situation is over, here it is:

http://www.infowars.com/feds-back-down-from-bundy-siege-after-infowars-expose-of-chinese-land-grab/

I saw an article on Reddit yesterday (it wasn't from Info Wars) talking about plans for renewable energy and mineral rights issues, something about fracking on his land, etc. Not in the mood to dig. Basically the idea was that the government would pressure him out of his land, pay him pennies, then sell it to corporations for a profit. Effectively eminent domain as far as I could tell. They were using the "public lands" thing to diminish his property and eventually force him to give it all up.

Sounds kinda like that family-owned motel issue that @Caz went through.

 

[FoolKiller]

I saw an article on Reddit yesterday (it wasn't from Info Wars) talking about plans for renewable energy and mineral rights issues, something about fracking on his land, etc. Not in the mood to dig. Basically the idea was that the government would pressure him out of his land, pay him pennies, then sell it to corporations for a profit. Effectively eminent domain as far as I could tell. They were using the "public lands" thing to diminish his property and eventually force him to give it all up.

Sounds kinda like that family-owned motel issue that @Caz went through.

I meant it as a joke but if any of this proves true then this video might be closer to the truth than I thought.

 

[LeMansAid]

You can bully an environment? How?

Oh right, this new age version of bullying where just telling someone you don't like them or winning a sports event by a large margin is bullying.

You're filling in vast gap for me there, and are a very long way from the reality.

But on the specific point: yes, I think he's bullying the environment, and the creatures that do and would depend on it. Those creatures had already worked out their balance with their world and each other. His, and his family's presence, tramples all over any kind of balance.

How? See this thread.

Now, if these latest reports about the government wanting to use the land themselves are true, they should be held to account in the same way. And that's your problem right there. That just doesn't seem likely.

 

[Keef]

@FoolKiller , Oh, I'm sure it happened way more in the past than it has in modern times. Back then news didn't travel fast and government had an easier time doing stuff it knew it shouldn't.

I'm looking for the article on Reddit.

What I can tell you is that the FAA issued a 3 nautical mile radius TFR (Temporary Flight Restriction) over the Bundy Ranch yesterday at 2138Z, 1738 EST, scheduled to end May 11 at 1434Z, 1034 EST, up to and including 3000 feet AGL (Above Ground Level). It's common practice to issue TFRs (effectively a military-style domestic no-fly zone) over areas that are media-sensitive. Why the don't want the media documentary the area from the air is up to speculation. There's all sorts of logical reasons, some more beneficial to the government than others.

ONLY RELIEF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS UNDER DIRECTION OF BLM ARE AUTHORIZED IN THE AIRSPACE

http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/

I just looked at the area on satellite and it's basically desert shrubs. The TFR is centered on some piles of dirt.

 

[niky]

The newest conspiracy theory on this, coming from Info Wars, so grain of salt here, is that yesterday documents were supposedly uncovered on the BLM's site that shows Henry Reid was pushing a solar plant that would affect Gold Butte and Bundy's cattle were in the way.

24 hours after the story was put out the BLM backed down.

Eh, I never take Info Wars serious, and read this yesterday but didn't post it for that reason. Now that the situation is over, here it is:

http://www.infowars.com/feds-back-down-from-bundy-siege-after-infowars-expose-of-chinese-land-grab/

Been thinking about this since the other day. Because you had a point on how the methods of the BLM did seem questionable, even if they had legal grounds.

A full return of the cattle seems a tacit admission that things were not on the up-and-up... And indeed it's possible that this is an issue similar to Caz's.

 

[FoolKiller]

You're filling in vast gap for me there, and are a very long way from the reality.

Bullying is a media buzzword that gets far overused, like saying you are bullying the environment.

But on the specific point: yes, I think he's bullying the environment, and the creatures that do and would depend on it. Those creatures had already worked out their balance with their world and each other. His, and his family's presence, tramples all over any kind of balance.

1) You have to assume his cattle are directly and solely responsible for the endangerment of the desert tortoise for that to be remotely true. I will patiently wait for your proof.

2) Your explanation doesn't even fit the definition of bullying. Not even in the loosest forms that people define it as today. Hell, your explanation applies to all humans everyday. I mean, you had to use a computer to post here. Plastics, rare metals, electricity...my god man! You have the environment two Facebook posts away from suicide just by having this debate!

I lace my bird seed in my feeders with crushed red pepper, and sprinkle red pepper powder on the ground. Why, because I have caught squirrels, voles, and chipmunks stealing the seed. A squirrel can empty a feeder in a day. This is safe for birds because they are immune to capsaicin, but most non-human mammals have not developed a taste for, or a tolerance to capsaicin. I guess that makes me a bully. And if one of the squirrels commits suicide because I hurt his feelings, well more power to him. It's better than the fate some of the hawks and owls that my bird community has attracted to the area would have in store for him. One of them tried to get at the starling nest in my bedroom window just today.

But you know what? I think I've heard you say you don't eat meat, so maybe you are unaware of just how humane free-range cattle farming is compared to the alternative. Who is the bigger "bully," the guys pinning cows in confined spaces, feeding them grains to make them fat and unhealthy or the guy who allows his cows to roam free, living and eating in a more natural habitat for them?

How? See this thread.

You'll have to be a little more specific. I mean, if it were obvious I wouldn't be asking the question.

Now, if these latest reports about the government wanting to use the land themselves are true, they should be held to account in the same way. And that's your problem right there. That just doesn't seem likely.

Better idea. Let's go back to how the Gold Butte region was obtained for settling by the US. That is bullying. Well, and murder/genocide.

 

[Omnis]

Better idea. Let's go back to how the Gold Butte region was obtained for settling by the US. That is bullying. Well, and murder/genocide.

Naw man, they got it on the Lousiana Purchase. nsfw

 

[Grayfox]

I really dont want him to get his cows back.

Farmers like him only care about themselves.

 

[FoolKiller]

I really dont want him to get his cows back.

Farmers like him only care about themselves.

Yes, allowing animals to roam freely, live as they did before farming, produce better and healthier product for market, and not make nearly as much money as industrial-style farming is so selfish.

It would be better if he just did it like this:

I also still contend that the Federal government does not have Constitutional jurisdiction to take control of that much land from a state. Feds claim to control 80% of Nevada land. How on Earth is that state sovereignty?

 

[Keef]

I also still contend that the Federal government does not have Constitutional jurisdiction to take control of that much land from a state. Feds claim to control 80% of Nevada land. How on Earth is that state sovereignty?

They're the ones who designed the state, eh? Apparently nobody else bought or homesteaded the land.

 

[Vegard]

I think backing down was the right decision - the situation could have turned very ugly.

Is there a chance that the case will go back to court, or will the BLM find another way to evict Bundy from the land when the storm has settled?

Civil disobedience keeping federal agents from enforcing the law, that's pretty serious in my book.
It challenges the rule of law and is a step in the direction of mob rule.

I think the BLM has painted itself into a corner here and they need to come up with a solution, quickly.

 

[Enemem]

Depends on who the mob is, people or governments?