Yesterday - Bundy Ranch

[TroutBum]

Lol. Thought something similar.

Get off my coattails, *** wipe.

 

[Stoked]

Get off my coattails, *** wipe.

You're not important enought to have coat tails.

 

[Hantlers]

I can certainly see both sides of the argument, I really can. I can totally see the point of view of the BLM. And the Bundy clan, while good folks, can be an arrogant bunch. I know this because I know them (and I am related to them), but the handling of this by the BLM/Feds is unbelievable. It is scary. It is hypocritical. It is the federal government trying to flex their muscles and show their power.
And like someone else in this thread said (PKM maybe?) depending on the article, you don't get the entire story (probably from either side, to be honest).
But one thing is certain....snipers and surveillance and helicopters and heavy artillery and feds everywhere?? A little over the top.

Oh I agree that the BLM has completely mishandled this. They've gone over the top, and quite frankly, it's frightening what they're able to do and the media won't say **** about this.

I guess all I'm saying is that legally, the Bundy's don't have much to stand on. They've been using land that they haven't paid for, and that obviously isn't allowed. They don't own the land like they say they do, and for them to act like it is preposterous.

Both sides are at fault in this, but I think the more frightening part is what the feds think that they can do to get their way.

 

[♪alt13]

^ I don't have time to debate this (at least right now) on a message board, but reading that post tells me exactly which article(s) you read after a quick google search on the matter.

I assure you, had you spent the day and evening with the Bundy's as I had, understood more details from their perspective, you'd see it a bit differently.

I'll admit there are two sides, but to believe either side is patently correct is to merely read a force-fed newstory and not understand the issues from the core basic elements of the real lives involved.

No bro. I'm not taking the side of the fed and as a matter of fact think they do a piss poor job managing blm land. That doesn't mean that I have to support what the Bundy's are doing.

I totally understand this point of view. Tbh, this was mine, entirely, before I spent time with them. Here are some FACTS that differ from the articles being written (someone has to feed the story to the 'journalists' (aka, bloggers) so it's not hard to see where they are getting their info.

1) The 'ranchers not supporting them' thing is TOTAL bs. I was there, with them, and there were hundreds of people there supporting them, including other ranchers (there are not many, at all, remaining). Nonetheless, they have far more local support than not. Of that I am certain.

Irrelevant. Don't care either way.

2) These permit-paying ranchers are the johnny-come-lately's. They were not there grazing in the 1800's. Part of the Bundy's claims is they have been supporting their neighbors, when in need, with beef for more than a century and now they're being told they have to pay the federal government without any acknowledgment of their past good deeds.

That is ridiculous. Aren't you a real-estate developer from Kentucky? Kinda Johny come lately tbh. This is also irrelevant and even more so than your first statement. I wonder what Native Americans would say about Mr. Bundy's "My Family was here first" claim.

I can see where the vast majority of Americans would find little to no sympathy for Clive Bundy. It's simply the law. However, we have been passively giving over more and more of our freedoms and inalienable rights to the federal government, continuously, for two centuries.. and now the pace has seemed to have quickened.

Alexis de Tocqueville rearing its head? Have we been 'recreated' to the point we've fallen asleep and simply get in line and follow the law regardless? The answer is yes.

A few questions.
Could the government possibly pass laws that are unconstitutional and unfair to the people?
Is there a point at which for you, personally, you draw the line and refuse to follow the law (think of China and baby girls)?
If there is a point we feel the government (other 'men') can cross into our civil liberties, what is that line.. and, specifically, do you believe that line is different for different people?

I TRULY believe we have become the cattle in America. UGLI is not the only robot on this forum. We are slowly handing over our rights and I fear too few people will have the eyes to see it in time... I am almost certain, in fact.

I agree with the spirit of this I just don't see Clive Bundy as the poster child for lost liberty. To show that I'm not just some fed loving *** her is a guy I do think is being railroaded. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587497/Wyomings-man-homemade-pond-turn-money-pit-EPA-threatens-75-000-day-fine.html


Ps. I have no qualms breaking the law if I see it as unjustified. I have tore into a judge in his own courtroom(twice). Don't lecture me for lack of contempt for government I have plenty.

 

[babe]

They are passing all sorts of laws limiting free speech to protect major agricultural concerns.

This is so far removed from the topic it should be flagged as "off topic".

Huge corporate operations with plenty of lawyers and the money to pay them and buy politicians are a thing apart from western family grazing operations.

The country where Clive Bundy's cattle range was part of Utah territory when the Bundys settled there and began running cattle in the area. It passed to Arizona territory for some years, and then to Nevada.

Nobody in those days thought the Federal government had any interest in grazing lands, but Congress passed some laws specifying how territorial land could be homesteaded and title given to the people who would settle it. This is not Oklahoma, Texas, or New Mexico, or Indian reservation land, all of which have a different historical track. Eastern states were pretty densely settled by frontiersmen before the Federal government got the attitude to assert control over land and keep the people off. Until the Civil War, it was considered a positve value to encourage anybody to settle land or make use of it. That's how the huge ranch ranges in some areas got started. . . . in Texas, for example. . . . .and why there were range wars between homesteaders and cowboys who thought the range was theirs.

The policy on western lands began to become more restrictive after the Civil War because some English gentlemen with broad ideas of how to manage the world came to this country with their "King's Forest" notions. Some had been in India helping govern that country in the British interests. Our Congress, with plenty of greased palms, gave the railroads a section of land. . . a square mile. . .. for every mile of track they laid. Some of the railroads got coal land for their miles, and became the great coal cartel in this country. . . .. surveyors were part of the package, and served the corporatists well. Keeping the land in government hands meant corporate interests would reap huge returns from exploiting the resources, because nobody could really access Congress they way they do. . . . .

Clive Bundy doesn't think the federal government legitimately can assume management of his grazing land his family has used since 1860. Ranchers in Texas who started their operations in 1870 didn't go under "Federal" claims of ownership. . . . .So why should Nevada be governed by a different law?

In our time, the BLM has become a tool for running people off the land, largely contrary to State interests and largely benefiting corporate interests who can still get their projects approved, while all the little guys are shut out.

The BLM and the Forest Service have not looked good on film in the West, and they are very sensitive to being filmed violating the little people's rights. Look for this tactic to be widely used from now on. . . .

Look for huge tracks of desert posted with signs like "Hairy Tick Preserve. . . . Keep Out". And the "Free Speech Zones" will be outta sight and outta mind.

It's not about the Hairy Ticks or any other "endangered species". It's about Corporatist Fascism in America.

 

[babe]

Well your personal feelings can also be part of the problem. Yes I don't know the whole story but it is rather black and white for me. If any rancher is using public land for his cows to graze on then they need to follow the law just like everyone else. So if the Bundy's can provide us a reason why or show that they have a permit than I am going to side with the law. I know the law can be wrong but it seems like a simple situation. Since you have inside information, are you saying that the Bundy's have a permit or they are using private land? If so then I can certainly jump on the anti-gov't train.

As a rancher who does submit to BLM management, paying the fees and following the regulations, I can only wonder how the BLM ended up managing the area I'm in when I am the direct line of title from the first rancher who used the land over a century ago, and before the Federal government started the BLM. . . . .

The first thing they did was promise to help the poor ranchers by building fences for them. Then they promised to get some really good range scientists who would help them get the most out of their range. . . . .in a time when most Americans were proud to be Americans and willing to go along with a government that was "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

I hope you will see this is not something we should put up with anymore.

It is pretty wonderful to have public land where anyone can go to get away for a break and see some nature. It's also a truth that grazing, whether by cattle or other animals results in spreading plant life and fertilizing the spot where the animals plant the seeds they don't digest. . . . and that any "herd", whether deer or cattle or anything else can be destructive, and that we need to sensibly manage our lands. Grazing rights are not title to the land, and that's how Congress could pass a law in the nineteenth century to encourage homesteading. Politically, the cattlemen lost out to the farmers. . . . just nobody would defend them in Washington. . . .until the rise of Corporate cartels in the meatpacking business. . . . And then it was still against the "little guy" range grazers, whom the big Feedlot operators have been trying to run out of business.

Grass-fed range cattle don't need the massive treatments with antibiotics and growth hormones. . . . . that you really don't want to have in your food.

 

[babe]

I totally understand this point of view. Tbh, this was mine, entirely, before I spent time with them. Here are some FACTS that differ from the articles being written (someone has to feed the story to the 'journalists' (aka, bloggers) so it's not hard to see where they are getting their info.

1) The 'ranchers not supporting them' thing is TOTAL bs. I was there, with them, and there were hundreds of people there supporting them, including other ranchers (there are not many, at all, remaining). Nonetheless, they have far more local support than not. Of that I am certain.

2) These permit-paying ranchers are the johnny-come-lately's. They were not there grazing in the 1800's. Part of the Bundy's claims is they have been supporting their neighbors, when in need, with beef for more than a century and now they're being told they have to pay the federal government without any acknowledgment of their past good deeds.

I can see where the vast majority of Americans would find little to no sympathy for Clive Bundy. It's simply the law. However, we have been passively giving over more and more of our freedoms and inalienable rights to the federal government, continuously, for two centuries.. and now the pace has seemed to have quickened.

Alexis de Tocqueville rearing its head? Have we been 'recreated' to the point we've fallen asleep and simply get in line and follow the law regardless? The answer is yes.

A few questions.
Could the government possibly pass laws that are unconstitutional and unfair to the people?
Is there a point at which for you, personally, you draw the line and refuse to follow the law (think of China and baby girls)?
If there is a point we feel the government (other 'men') can cross into our civil liberties, what is that line.. and, specifically, do you believe that line is different for different people?

I TRULY believe we have become the cattle in America. UGLI is not the only robot on this forum. We are slowly handing over our rights and I fear too few people will have the eyes to see it in time... I am almost certain, in fact.

a post worth repeating. . . .

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

 

[cowhide]

As a rancher who does submit to BLM management, paying the fees and following the regulations, I can only wonder how the BLM ended up managing the area I'm in when I am the direct line of title from the first rancher who used the land over a century ago, and before the Federal government started the BLM. . . . .

The first thing they did was promise to help the poor ranchers by building fences for them. Then they promised to get some really good range scientists who would help them get the most out of their range. . . . .in a time when most Americans were proud to be Americans and willing to go along with a government that was "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

I hope you will see this is not something we should put up with anymore.

It is pretty wonderful to have public land where anyone can go to get away for a break and see some nature. It's also a truth that grazing, whether by cattle or other animals results in spreading plant life and fertilizing the spot where the animals plant the seeds they don't digest. . . . and that any "herd", whether deer or cattle or anything else can be destructive, and that we need to sensibly manage our lands. Grazing rights are not title to the land, and that's how Congress could pass a law in the nineteenth century to encourage homesteading. Politically, the cattlemen lost out to the farmers. . . . just nobody would defend them in Washington. . . .until the rise of Corporate cartels in the meatpacking business. . . . And then it was still against the "little guy" range grazers, whom the big Feedlot operators have been trying to run out of business.

Grass-fed range cattle don't need the massive treatments with antibiotics and growth hormones. . . . . that you really don't want to have in your food.

Are you insinuating that I am anti-grazing? The fact is that claiming the right to graze on public land because your family has been doing it for decades does not entitle you to special rights. Everyone else is paying for the right to do this. Beside the fact of claiming that you or your family has been doing it for decades seems hypocritical considering the history of America.

I don't like driving 65 miles/hr through the desert of Nevada but that doesn't stop the gov't from monitoring my speed and pulling me over. I can debate that the speed should be changed or is stupid but until it is changed I either decide to follow the speed limit or decide to speed taking a chance I will be fined or arrested for doing so. I don't see this situation as losing your civil liberties because the Bundy's have no legal right to do what they are doing. The courts made a decision and now the gov't is enforcing the decision which is all legal per the constitution (police powers).

Sometimes the constitution sucks especially when it affects your life or the life of someone you know. I just don't see how paying the permit fees is more expensive than losing 50 + cows. To me, It only seems like certain Americans only love America when they get there way but when they don't get their way they start talking about their civil liberties being taken away. Sorry but I know there are many cases where people get screwed by the gov't but I don't see it in this case. Now if the Bundy's had some legal right to the land then I would be all for your cause. I haven't seen any evidence of that and just because they've been doing it for years doesn't give them legal right to federal land. The gov't whether it be the state, local or federal, will never allow people to just ignore the law when the courts have decided against a particular person because in doing so they make all court decisions invalid. Whether you like the decision or not, anything else is anarchy.

The whole reason for the court system is for We the people to be heard and hopefully find a solution or some justice. I know the system doesn't always work and there is corruption but for now it is the way it has been. I am all for fighting the system when you have a legitimate claim or complaint. However, in this story I don't see it. I think all this mess could have been avoided if the Bundy's just paid the permit fees like everyone else. I do not think they are entitled to anything more. I really don't see how the affects of grazing have anything to do with my argument. I am not against grazing.

 

[Dr. Jones]

We are helping house people from all over the country. My wife is acting as a communications coordinator for OathkeepersOathkeepers of America.. and other large groups. She's really dialed in. Regardless of sides.. im proud of her for trying to be part of something important to her.

I will say this. By this weekend I predict the numbers on site will climb to 5,000.

I pray cool heads prevail and people don't lose their lives. I have seen trigger happy people on both sides and fear the worst.

My biggest beef (haha?) with this whole thing is why the feds didn't simply arrest Clive, move the cattle, and be done with it... why they felt the need to mobilize, military-style, with a 200 tent base camp, automatic rifles, snipers on hilltop.. and "ask" for this???

Im not much for conspiracy theories, but it sure as hell seems they're flexing for the country to see.. to warn against others standing against..

 

[Dr. Jones]

.. why they felt the need to mobilize, military-style, with a 200 tent base camp, automatic rifles, snipers on hilltop.. and "ask" for this???

I would love to hear other's theories on this.. it's really eating at me to figure it out.

I have heard;

1) To show strength and make sure "we" are under submission.
2) That it's really about oil.
3) a couple other seemingly outlandish things..

None of them really add up to me, except maybe #1. If it were oil or something, why not just arrest immediately? Only reason I can see for unnecessary use and display of power is sending a message. The longer this unnecessarily drags on the more attention it gets, the more people see standing against the government is futile.

Still, though... something is gnawing at me.... why?

 

[Stoked]

We are helping house people from all over the country. My wife is acting as a communications coordinator for OathkeepersOathkeepers of America.. and other large groups. She's really dialed in. Regardless of sides.. im proud of her for trying to be part of something important to her.

I will say this. By this weekend I predict the numbers on site will climb to 5,000.

I pray cool heads prevail and people don't lose their lives. I have seen trigger happy people on both sides and fear the worst.

My biggest beef (haha?) with this whole thing is why the feds didn't simply arrest Clive, move the cattle, and be done with it... why they felt the need to mobilize, military-style, with a 200 tent base camp, automatic rifles, snipers on hilltop.. and "ask" for this???

Im not much for conspiracy theories, but it sure as hell seems they're flexing for the country to see.. to warn against others standing against..

At this point I do not feel that the BLM has that option.( short of either National Guard coming in or another shoot out where dozens die) Go read the comments on some of the FB pages in support of this family. Go watch the Youtube videos of it. There are now armed militia (hand guns, AR15s, scoped rifles, fatigues...) on site. Any move to arrest Mr. Bundy will result in a shoot out where lives are lost.

I see this as something that has a very real potential (if it has not already) to get beyond the Bundys and BLMs ability to control. To many people looking for a fight are getting involved.

 

[Dr. Jones]

At this point I do not feel that the BLM has that option.( short of either National Guard coming in or another shoot out where dozens die) Go read the comments on some of the FB pages in support of this family. Go watch the Youtube videos of it. There are now armed militia (hand guns, AR15s, scoped rifles, fatigues...) on site. Any move to arrest Mr. Bundy will result in a shoot out where lives are lost.

I see this as something that has a very real potential (if it has not already) to get beyond the Bundys and BLMs ability to control. To many people looking for a fight are getting involved.

Agree..

Many of those videos were taken by us and we're in a few. At this point, we have ducked out of the onsite stuff in concern for our kids retaining their parents.

 

[Hantlers]

There's too many idiots on both sides out there.

I think that's about all that needs to be said.

 

[Dr. Jones]

There's too many idiots on both sides out there.

I think that's about all that needs to be said.

That's ********. That is partially true, yes.. but there are also some VERY good people with strong beliefs that are simply exercising their 'rights.'

 

[Harambe]

Oh I agree that the BLM has completely mishandled this. They've gone over the top, and quite frankly, it's frightening what they're able to do and the media won't say **** about this.

I guess all I'm saying is that legally, the Bundy's don't have much to stand on. They've been using land that they haven't paid for, and that obviously isn't allowed. They don't own the land like they say they do, and for them to act like it is preposterous.

Both sides are at fault in this, but I think the more frightening part is what the feds think that they can do to get their way.

I'm not convinced this is true. Their family goes back to 1887, pre BLM. They can make a homesteading plea under the homestead act of 1862.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts#Homestead_Act_of_1862

The law (and those following it) required a three step procedure: file an application, improve the land, and file for deed of title. Anyone who had never taken up arms against the U.S. government (including freed slaves) and was at least 21 years old or the head of a household, could file an application to claim a federal land grant. The occupant had to reside on the land for five years, and show evidence of having made improvements.

They've certainly improved the land, and they can prove that. And there has to be something filed with the county from back in the day declaring it Bundy property... right? It doesn't say how they have to file an application, or what form that application needs be in, just proof of their existence there.

 

[Hantlers]

That's ********. That is partially true, yes.. but there are also some VERY good people with strong beliefs that are simply exercising their 'rights.'

There are a lot of good people with strong beliefs that do stupid things.

All of these militia people coming out aren't helping the Bundy's. Hell, they probably don't care about the Bundy's. They just want an opportunity to stand against the government, which is fine…but if they actually cared about the Bundy's, there are far more effective ways to help than what they're doing. They're just making it worse.

 

[Hantlers]

I'm not convinced this is true. Their family goes back to 1887, pre BLM. They can make a homesteading plea under the homestead act of 1862.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts#Homestead_Act_of_1862



They've certainly improved the land, and they can prove that. And there has to be something filed with the county from back in the day declaring it Bundy property... right? It doesn't say how they have to file an application, or what form that application needs be in, just proof of their existence there.

If they would have filed, I'm sure there would be an application somewhere. I'm positive Bundy knows that, but yet he still hasn't talked about it at all. All he ever says is that he's been there for a long time. No papers filed, no land.

He's just mad that he had to start paying fees in the early '90's…and rightfully so. I would have been mad too. At some point you have to cut your losses and either relocate, or just go with it. Do I feel bad for a guy who has been grazing a place for free? Hell no. Especially not when essentially all of the ranchers that graze land, pay a fee for it. You don't see them bitching about it. Again, if he had a leg to stand on legally, it would have been presented in court, and obviously, he didn't have anything.

By no means am I excusing the way the BLM has acted this last week, but that doesn't excuse Bundy from breaking the law and essentially stealing resources.

 

[Stoked]

I'm not convinced this is true. Their family goes back to 1887, pre BLM. They can make a homesteading plea under the homestead act of 1862.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts#Homestead_Act_of_1862



They've certainly improved the land, and they can prove that. And there has to be something filed with the county from back in the day declaring it Bundy property... right? It doesn't say how they have to file an application, or what form that application needs be in, just proof of their existence there.

Well, the Bundys HAVE lost in court a couple times. But this is morphing far beyond a dispute over this mans cattle and grazing rights. This is turning into a resistance against the government. All the grievences, real or imagined, are being fought thru this issue. I have heard the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th amendments being brought up.

 

[Dr. Jones]

There are a lot of good people with strong beliefs that do stupid things.

All of these militia people coming out aren't helping the Bundy's. Hell, they probably don't care about the Bundy's. They just want an opportunity to stand against the government, which is fine…but if they actually cared about the Bundy's, there are far more effective ways to help than what they're doing. They're just making it worse.

At least I proved my point... that there IS more to be said.

If they would have filed, I'm sure there would be an application somewhere. I'm positive Bundy knows that, but yet he still hasn't talked about it at all. All he ever says is that he's been there for a long time. No papers filed, no land.

He's just mad that he had to start paying fees in the early '90's…and rightfully so. I would have been mad too. At some point you have to cut your losses and either relocate, or just go with it. Do I feel bad for a guy who has been grazing a place for free? Hell no. Especially not when essentially all of the ranchers that graze land, pay a fee for it. You don't see them bitching about it. Again, if he had a leg to stand on legally, it would have been presented in court, and obviously, he didn't have anything.

By no means am I excusing the way the BLM has acted this last week, but that doesn't excuse Bundy from breaking the law and essentially stealing resources.

The rules changed and he decided to disagree with the changes. I can see both sides of this argument. I'm NOT convinced that the grazing fees were entirely and patently constitutional and, at worst, it's debatable. What if the government suddenly decided to designate YOUR land as only able to graze cattle.. that potatoes were bad for the environment? You may obey, you may go broke.. but either the case, I would feel bad for you.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I get that I am in the vast minority on this issue, but I am not trying to convince anyone to any line of thinking, I'm just having conversation.

Besides, for me, this is less about the Bundy's and much more about why the feds are treating this like it's Iraq or something... BEFORE anyone began showing up and it escalating. They brought in hundreds of armed agents prior to any protests at all. They CREATED the conflict, intentionally or not. <---- Would love to know the answer to that one.