Yesterday - Bundy Ranch

[Surely]

I'm a little late to the party, but I found this on facebook and thought it was interesting:

When I first heard the story of the Bundy Ranch, back before the raid, I wasn’t sure where I stood. I wasn’t sure how someone could just stop paying fees to the government and still use the land. But I wanted to understand a little more. Here’s what I found:
• Back in the late 1800s (just so my kids understand, that’s way before I was born) there were disputes between the ranchers who used the land to graze the cattle. They asked the government to intervene. As a result of this the government established grazing rights.
• More than 50 years later, in 1934 the Taylor Grazing Act created the Grazing Service to help regulate grazing.
• In 1946 the General Land Office was merged with the Grazing Service forming the BLM.
• For many years the BLM collected fees from ranchers and used this money to better the range land.
• Over time, the BLM began to change. Many of the people hired by the BLM believed that the land should not be used for grazing: they felt that it should be left untouched. Some felt that the land should be wild wilderness land without roads and access.
• As time went on, they pushed harder and harder to limit the rights that the ranchers had enjoyed for over 100 years.
• The BLM began cutting the allotment that they gave out to the ranchers. This meant that the ranchers were required to cut their herds, which meant that many would be losing money.
• In the Gold Butte area ranchers were bought out by the BLM using the money that they had paid the government in grazing fees. In other words, the allotments were cut to the point that the ranchers could not survive and then their own money was used to buy them out.
• At that point Clive Bundy stopped paying the fees to the Federal government. I’m not sure that this was the right thing to do, but I’m not sure he had any other options.
• Now the government is coming in and taking his cattle from the land that has been used by his family since the 1800s.
I don’t know that the Bundy’s are right, but I know that the BLM is wrong. That is why I #standwiththebundys
We could go into the whole state’s rights issue, but that is another epistle for another day.
#bundyranch

 

[Stoked]

would you like me to unveil something? what's bothering you, sweetie?

You give yourself to much credit. Plus I am already married.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I'm a little late to the party, but I found this on facebook and thought it was interesting:

When I first heard the story of the Bundy Ranch, back before the raid, I wasn’t sure where I stood. I wasn’t sure how someone could just stop paying fees to the government and still use the land. But I wanted to understand a little more. Here’s what I found:
• Back in the late 1800s (just so my kids understand, that’s way before I was born) there were disputes between the ranchers who used the land to graze the cattle. They asked the government to intervene. As a result of this the government established grazing rights.
• More than 50 years later, in 1934 the Taylor Grazing Act created the Grazing Service to help regulate grazing.
• In 1946 the General Land Office was merged with the Grazing Service forming the BLM.
• For many years the BLM collected fees from ranchers and used this money to better the range land.
• Over time, the BLM began to change. Many of the people hired by the BLM believed that the land should not be used for grazing: they felt that it should be left untouched. Some felt that the land should be wild wilderness land without roads and access.
• As time went on, they pushed harder and harder to limit the rights that the ranchers had enjoyed for over 100 years.
• The BLM began cutting the allotment that they gave out to the ranchers. This meant that the ranchers were required to cut their herds, which meant that many would be losing money.
• In the Gold Butte area ranchers were bought out by the BLM using the money that they had paid the government in grazing fees. In other words, the allotments were cut to the point that the ranchers could not survive and then their own money was used to buy them out.
• At that point Clive Bundy stopped paying the fees to the Federal government. I’m not sure that this was the right thing to do, but I’m not sure he had any other options.
• Now the government is coming in and taking his cattle from the land that has been used by his family since the 1800s.
I don’t know that the Bundy’s are right, but I know that the BLM is wrong. That is why I #standwiththebundys
We could go into the whole state’s rights issue, but that is another epistle for another day.
#bundyranch

Thanks for the post.

Things are ratcheting up again and it appears the avoidance of blooshed will fail.
I wish the feds would just wait until everyone leaves to arrest Bundy.. makes no sense to me to just keep adding firepower.
More militia on their way too. I hate this whole thing.
If the feds would wait and arrest Clive for nonpayment (even if he's not wrong) I'd be satisfied with the events.

I'll be terribly disappointed if 'our' decision (since 'we' elected them) is to triple our firepower and move in against thousands of protesters.

 

[Stoked]

Thanks for the post.

Things are ratcheting up again and it appears the avoidance of blooshed will fail.
I wish the feds would just wait until everyone leaves to arrest Bundy.. makes no sense to me to just keep adding firepower.
More militia on their way too. I hate this whole thing.
If the feds would wait and arrest Clive for nonpayment (even if he's not wrong) I'd be satisfied with the events.

I'll be terribly disappointed if 'our' decision (since 'we' elected them) is to triple our firepower and move in against thousands of protesters.

There are also reports of another BLM/rancher feud on the TX/OK state line. Rumors are that militia are headed there as well. if so I have the following questions:

At what point do the feds feel that they have to do something drastic?

How long can they allow part of the populace to directly impeed their authority?

 

[Dr. Jones]

There are also reports of another BLM/rancher feud on the TX/OK state line. Rumors are that militia are headed there as well. if so I have the following questions:

At what point do the feds feel that they have to do something drastic?

How long can they allow part of the populace to directly impeed their authority?

Excellent questions.

If I were calling the shots (Or, wait, am I? I mean, because I voted these are 'my' decisions, right??), I would allow these two specific issues to die down. Take a step back, analyze the issues and be SURE I am in the right and the ranchers are clearly in the wrong. If there needs to be an amendment that is more fair, negotiate and work towards something more fair and sustainable. If I find that no changes are required and the ranchers are 100% wrong, I make no threats, I don't 'mobilize' units, I simply go in swiftly and make the arrests and do what is needed. Dragging these things out is causing a problem and we need to allow things to settle down.

Regardless who's right, escalating this is the wrong move, period.

 

[ema]

I get your point PKM, the thing to like here is the spirit, even though their case might not be the most righteous or lawful.

When the things aren't the best for the citizens/public, like dalamon stated in a few posts, and when there is a legitimate case to stand up against, will the elite rise up against the oppressors bravely and rightfully? I bet those people and their counterparts will be the ones who are going to show up first.

We did the same for Gezi Parkı, and guess what, we saved it from the greedy government, at least for now..

And believe me, when the things aren't that well, governments do not have and will not have any limits against their own people. It's same for even the most so called developed countries.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

You give yourself to much credit. Plus I am already married.

what do I give myself credit for? Srs... please give specifics.

 

[Dr. Jones]

^This guy understands. There is a time to stand up. The Bundy situation may or may not be a correct time, but I wonder what % of Americans think it's never okay?

 

[franklin]

I think it's time to bump some old Occupy Portland threads to see who was for that "police brutality" but against this one based on political allegiances.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I think it's time to bump some old Occupy Portland threads to see who was for that "police brutality" but against this one based on political allegiances.

I don't think I was part of that thread.. don't recall it.

Also, this has NOTHING, at all, to do with political sides for me... nor anyone else I spoke with at the ranch. Again, whether who is 'right' or 'wrong' it was merely about right and wrong.

 

[franklin]

I'm a little late to the party, but I found this on facebook and thought it was interesting:

When I first heard the story of the Bundy Ranch, back before the raid, I wasn’t sure where I stood. I wasn’t sure how someone could just stop paying fees to the government and still use the land. But I wanted to understand a little more. Here’s what I found:
• Back in the late 1800s (just so my kids understand, that’s way before I was born) there were disputes between the ranchers who used the land to graze the cattle. They asked the government to intervene. As a result of this the government established grazing rights.
• More than 50 years later, in 1934 the Taylor Grazing Act created the Grazing Service to help regulate grazing.
• In 1946 the General Land Office was merged with the Grazing Service forming the BLM.
• For many years the BLM collected fees from ranchers and used this money to better the range land.
• Over time, the BLM began to change. Many of the people hired by the BLM believed that the land should not be used for grazing: they felt that it should be left untouched. Some felt that the land should be wild wilderness land without roads and access.
• As time went on, they pushed harder and harder to limit the rights that the ranchers had enjoyed for over 100 years.
• The BLM began cutting the allotment that they gave out to the ranchers. This meant that the ranchers were required to cut their herds, which meant that many would be losing money.
• In the Gold Butte area ranchers were bought out by the BLM using the money that they had paid the government in grazing fees. In other words, the allotments were cut to the point that the ranchers could not survive and then their own money was used to buy them out.
• At that point Clive Bundy stopped paying the fees to the Federal government. I’m not sure that this was the right thing to do, but I’m not sure he had any other options.
• Now the government is coming in and taking his cattle from the land that has been used by his family since the 1800s.
I don’t know that the Bundy’s are right, but I know that the BLM is wrong. That is why I #standwiththebundys
We could go into the whole state’s rights issue, but that is another epistle for another day.
#bundyranch

Rights, privilege, entitlement... it's all the same thing now, right?

Hunters and fishers have lost privileges far more than these cattle prodders ever will. We've lost privilege to cattle and mountain maggot farmers even. The difference is we decide to work with government instead of taking this entitlement mentality and scream that Washington is out of control.

Look up the Southeastern ATV protests and compare them with this one. Common theme: I can do what I want with everyone else's public lands and the voters can go screw themselves.

 

[franklin]

I don't think I was part of that thread.. don't recall it.

Also, this has NOTHING, at all, to do with political sides for me... nor anyone else I spoke with at the ranch. Again, whether who is 'right' or 'wrong' it was merely about right and wrong.

Basically, a bunch of people thought the government was out of control and were protesting the bank bailouts. The feds sent in the army to ensure peace was kept and blocked off sections of the city. The mob thought this was a violation of their freedom of speech and rioted.

The right, by and large, condemned the protestors because they were taking a leftist mentality. Militia members did not show up to support this freedom movement.

As an afterthought, the difference between the right and left truly does boil down to the fact that we have guns and they do not. Both sides were fighting the same fight though (big business and government are out of control).

 

[Stoked]

Basically, a bunch of people thought the government was out of control and were protesting the bank bailouts. The feds sent in the army to ensure peace was kept and blocked off sections of the city. The mob thought this was a violation of their freedom of speech and rioted.

The right, by and large, condemned the protestors because they were taking a leftist mentality. Militia members did not show up to support this freedom movement.

As an afterthought, the difference between the right and left truly does boil down to the fact that we have guns and they do not. Both sides were fighting the same fight though (big business and government are out of control).

It would be interesting to see who took what sides.

But from what you described it should be about equal to what is being stated on here. (Probably wont be though).

 

[Dr. Jones]

Basically, a bunch of people thought the government was out of control and were protesting the bank bailouts. The feds sent in the army to ensure peace was kept and blocked off sections of the city. The mob thought this was a violation of their freedom of speech and rioted.

The right, by and large, condemned the protestors because they were taking a leftist mentality. Militia members did not show up to support this freedom movement.

As an afterthought, the difference between the right and left truly does boil down to the fact that we have guns and they do not. Both sides were fighting the same fight though (big business and government are out of control).

Are you on the right??

I seriously don't even care about political parties anymore. I may work a couple more years and buy an island, elect myself president, and bitch to myself about the job I'm doing.

 

[Stoked]

Are you on the right??

I seriously don't even care about political parties anymore. I may work a couple more years and buy an island, elect myself president, and bitch to myself about the job I'm doing.

I'm willing to be the voting resident. Just sayin...

 

[ema]

Are you on the right??

I seriously don't even care about political parties anymore. I may work a couple more years and buy an island, elect myself president, and bitch to myself about the job I'm doing.

Will you require passport and visa?

 

[Dr. Jones]

Will you require passport and visa?

Only ones sketched on barnaps.

 

[ema]

Only ones sketched on barnaps.

Nice, mines are ready then. Always wanted to live on an island.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

This topic got me thinking about a few things, and brought up a few questions.


Is the government here to serve the people, or the people here to serve the government?

Does the government derive it's power from the people, or some other source?

At what point is it ok for the people to stand up against their own government?

What does it take to break the spell of apathy that has blanketed a nation's citizens?

Sometimes it seems to me that our government is putting into practice the "how do you boil a frog" and the "how do you eat an elephant" questions.
Turning the head up little by little, or taking one bite at a time for a long period of time... out of it's citizens.

Am I wrong? What would be the signs of this to see it happening if it were?


There is a time to unite and make a stand. Maybe for these ranchers now is that time for them. Enough is enough, maybe they believe in their country and in the people around them. It's not always a bad thing to make a stand against your government to get them to change. It can be and in many cases is, but is not always the case.

The question is, when is the right time, and what makes it ok?

I think I see what PKM is saying, and think it's good to see people stand up for what they feel is right even if it's against their government and even if others think they are in the wrong. There is rarely a perfect and obvious time to stand up for something where all will see it your way. It doesn't mean you are what some of the people in this thread have called the Bundys or their supporters, it could just mean others don't get the full picture or haven't seen all you've seen. Honestly I would prefer to be around people willing to stand up for something as opposed to people not willing to get up off of their butts because they are too busy with whatever entertainment or whatever to care about what goes on in the world around them. Like PKM said, it's not a right or wrong issue, it's something else.

 

[Qman]

Wow you been drinking PKM? Nice to allow others to have a difference of opinion. While you might not have said the actual words, your support for the Bundy's side certainly says volumes about your position. The name calling simply makes me think we've touched a nerve besides making you sound like one of those dumb *** teabagger racists who continuously them talk about how they've lost all these freedoms since their is a black man in the white house and since they are the real americans they are going to stand up to this oppressive administration....******** while going around and threatening to over throw the gov't because they don't get their way. See it is easy to call other people names but I guess that is what you have to do when you are wrong.

The only reason why the gov't made a big deal about it was because a bunch of redneck anti-government people showed up with guns crying about their civil liberties being taken away when all the evidence showed they were breaking the law. If the Bundies had either stopped using the land or payed the permit fees nothing would have happened. The victim card gets really old when you aren't the victim. This is the last I will say on this issue too unless you want to continue it.

Have a nice day.
signed old liberal generation member.

Apparently the contention is that BLM is infact a bad organization- why does the federal government need to own all this land?

Or all laws moral and just? Just because something is the law right now doesn't mean it is right. You may or may not be aware many people believe that the states should managing/owning government land.