Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 105

Thread: The Bundy Ranch

  1. #1
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia

    The Bundy Ranch

    So, I'm not quite sure what to make of this ongoing situation. You guys will have to shed some light on it for me, but this is what I've gathered from reading several articles and watching the video;

    1) Feds enact law decades ago that you must be permitted to use federal land for grazing.
    2) Bundy says no, it's his land by "preemption."
    3) BLM finally comes to remove his cattle by force after 20 years of noncompliance with the law.

    After that, from what I gather, he legally has zero right to the land. The rest of the cattlemen have been paying for the permit since it became law, and the Cattleman's Association(?) even refuses to support Bundy. I'm told that the BLM is despised in the mid-west....yet I'm not really seeing much support against the BLM in this situation by the mid-west. All the pokers in the fire seem to be from Bundy's family and organizations like the Oathkeepers. That's pretty telling, to me.

    Then the claims of his ranch being surrounded by hundreds of snipers and SWAT teams....I'm not finding any third parties which are confirming these claims. Memes are popping up on facebook showing supposed pictures of them, but they're obviously photos from different events (including Iraq) not related to the Bundy Ranch at all.

    Then the video......I'm sorry, but playing stupid games gets you stupid prizes. Trying to kick a police dog? Gimme a break. Everything I could observe from that video is that the agents were fairly restrained, and when they saw their tactics were making the situation more explosive they packed up and left. Smart, IMO, because that had the potential to be a really bad day.

    So, add your info. Learn me the cowboy life. Discuss. To me, at this point, it appears the pro-Bundy crowd is full of mouth-breathers who are doing more harm than good to their situation by making unverifiable, or outright false claims.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  2. #2
    Did you see the "reports" of Harry Reid/his/son/a Chinese "clean" power company being the main reason behind all of this? Basically, Reid & company need/want that land to build solar power panels, or something like that. Given the source of those reports, have your salt shaker handy.

    Then again, supposedly, those federal land use rules/grazing fee schedules have been in place for decades, and this Bundy fellow suddenly decides he ain't paying anymore? That's a non-starter. I suppose it boils down to, who owns the land? The federal government, or the state of Nevada?

    The Clark County Commissioner stuck his foot in his mouth, apparently. Its getting ugly, for sure.

    .

  3. #3
    Site Supporter LOKNLOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    I don't know but the reports that bunches of armed militia are showing up to support him are concerning. One ND from a one careless idiot could set off a disaster.
    --Josh
    “Formerly we suffered from crimes; now we suffer from laws.” - Tacitus.

  4. #4
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/11...cmp=latestnews
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
    1) Feds enact law decades ago that you must be permitted to use federal land for grazing.
    2) Bundy says no, it's his land by "preemption."
    3) BLM finally comes to remove his cattle by force after 20 years of noncompliance with the law.
    ...
    I'm told that the BLM is despised in the mid-west.......
    Quote Originally Posted by LSP972 View Post
    Did you see the "reports" of Harry Reid/his/son/a Chinese "clean" power company being the main reason behind all of this? Basically, Reid & company need/want that land to build solar power panels, or something like that. Given the source of those reports, have your salt shaker handy.

    Then again, supposedly, those federal land use rules/grazing fee schedules have been in place for decades, and this Bundy fellow suddenly decides he ain't paying anymore? That's a non-starter. I suppose it boils down to, who owns the land? The federal government, or the state of Nevada?

    The Clark County Commissioner stuck his foot in his mouth, apparently. Its getting ugly, for sure.

    .
    Couple points:
    *Nevada ain't the "mid-west".
    *At least one report has it that he didn't "decide to stop paying" so much as BLM stopped accepting payment. Other reports contradict that claim.
    *BLM has a track record of charging the politically connected a pittance for exclusive rights to high-profit resources.
    What little sticks with me of the 12 hours or so of law I studied in college lo! these many moons ago is that, if they let him do it for 20 years, he has some claim that they should have known he was doing it and were cool with it. "Constructive possession" or something like that.
    The article I linked to above, though, says the government mouthpiece claims they've been trying to settle the issue amicably.
    Sorry, I have little trust in those guys these days.

    And, yes, where Harry Reid and his clan are involved, especially (given the predilections of the current administration) when "green" money is at stake, the urge to break out the tin foil hat becomes almost overwhelming...
    Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
    “It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
    Glenn Reynolds

  5. #5
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Drang View Post
    What little sticks with me of the 12 hours or so of law I studied in college lo! these many moons ago is that, if they let him do it for 20 years, he has some claim that they should have known he was doing it and were cool with it. "Constructive possession" or something like that.
    I think you are talking about adverse possession, which generally does not apply against public property. Also, it doesn't appear that he would have met the "hostile" element required for adverse possession because he started using the land with the permission of the owner.

  6. #6
    I read something that the Bundy's claim to have acquired rights to graze there 3 generations ago, then about 20-30 years ago the federal government imposed a use fee for maintenance, which they paid until the government changed the rules again at which point they cried foul. The last rule change was a couple years after dirty Harry took office. And, we all have to remember that Reid has enriched himself while in public office through real estate deals that usually have an extremely slimy angle.

  7. #7
    Member BaiHu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    In front of pixels.
    Tis the rumor I heard as well Spr1.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
    Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.

  8. #8
    Evidently the BLM folks decided they were going to end up on the wrong side of the PR battle. They are standing down per Drudge.

  9. #9
    I don't know anything about the particulars of the legal dispute, but the situation sure looks like it doesn't require an armed intervention TODAY, given it has been going on for one or more decades. In Alaska, in the last year or so, very SWAT looking federal teams raided a number of gold mining operations in rural Alaska, looking for water quality violations. This didn't sit well with locals, and caused many to think the federal response was disproportionate to the alleged violations. I sure hope those in charge are working on defusing, not escalating this situation.
    Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.

  10. #10
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    E. Wash.
    I'm glad this has deescalated.
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevada-catt...ry?id=23302610

    I've worked on legal disputes between ranchers and the federal government, in particular, regarding water rights for ranchers on federal land. There are a lot of competing interests in these cases, including environmental interests, the federal government's interest in controlling publicly owned land, and rancher's historic use of the land. My understanding is that the feds were enforcing a court order for the cattle to be removed.
    My general feeling, in my profession, is that a court-order is a court order. You don't like it, appeal. I also understand that the visuals of the federal response appear heavy handed and shocking. So I sympathize with both sides, and side with neither, I guess.
    At the same time, I believe that the Sheriff of that area (Clark County I think) stated that, "No cow is worth anyone dying over." Which is 100 percent correct.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •