Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 20046478)

Wait, the BLM says Bundy owes 1 million in grazing rights for 150 cattle? Price of beef really went up I guess?

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20046495)

perhaps danza can chime in but i don't see why bundy did not pursue this legally, opting instead for a violent clash, which will not end well for him if the fed gov decides to show up en force.

just like those somali pirates, waco, etc. when the real forces shows up, the other side will lose bad. doubtful anyone will be able to just walk away from this now.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 20046478)

Wait, the BLM says Bundy owes 1 million in grazing rights for 150 cattle? Price of beef really went up I guess?

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 20046450)

Here's where I think the BLM loses any credibility

They say they are protecting the local tortoise there and they are saying he hasn't paid any grazing fees. I want to ask, which is it? Is this about protecting a tortoise or about the fees, because you surely can't protect the tortoises by charging fees for grazing rights?

And here again, I would ask how do you defend fees when you are spending $996k to have the cattle removed(killed), not counting the 200 federal agents and their cost, sounds like a lot of bull shit to me!

Originally Posted by SykkBoy (Post 20046505)

There's also a lot of scuttlebutt about the feds wanting to use the land for fracking

Originally Posted by SykkBoy (Post 20046479)

I know you and I are complete polar opposites politically, but this is that rare case I agree with you.

It's not about his owing of the grazing fees. It's about how the feds stormed in and acted.

Should he have paid the grazing fees? Yes, although I feel it's stupid to charge someone for using public lands (that no one else gives a fuck about anyways), but it's no reason to overreact the way they did. I don't care which administration, republican or democrat, the feds have gotten worse over the last 12-15 years. People are getting tired of the abuses and excuses. This issue goes beyond a couple rightwing nutjobs in militia gear.

Look for more of this type of thing to happen.

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20046484)

he owes 300k.. and that's between 93-11

between 11 and now, he owes 1.1 million.

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20046502)

...i am not sure what legal options he had...

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20046502)

his son was arrested for 'failure to disperse and resisting arrest' the night before all this started

he got beaten up pretty bad.

i am not sure what legal options he had, considering the sheriff was backing him up over the past decade.. and suddenly 'has nothing to do with this'

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog (Post 20046518)

There is a reason for that...

Originally Posted by SykkBoy (Post 20046505)

There's also a lot of scuttlebutt about the feds wanting to use the land for fracking

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20046484)

he owes 300k.. and that's between 93-11

between 11 and now, he owes 1.1 million.

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20046506)

do you have annnyyy links for this? been rumours but i haven't been able to get anything concrete

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 20046532)

Just a theory so far
http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_bl...ndy_ranch.html

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20046527)

i don't get this, the government does not engage in fracking.

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20046542)

They lease the land to the oil companies. Padre Island National Seashore which is a national park has gas wells on it owned by private companies and the land right is leased.

This was the big deal when Sarah Palin was running With McCain and the their whole "drill baby drill" slogan. She was trying to force the govt to open up more federal land in Alaska for drilling.

They let the oil companies on the land to drill and the companies pay a small fee and reap massive profits off US tax payer owned land.

No idea if that's the case here, but honestly I wouldn't be surprised.

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20046528)

I assume the rapid increase from 2011 til now, is due to fines? Kinda like if you don't pay the IRS the fines quickly add up to more than the amount initially owed.

What it's starting to look like, is this guy was ranching there and paying fees. Then in 1993 for some reason he stopped paying the fees.

Some time along the way from what Dyno Mo posted the BLM decided to change the amount of cattle a rancher could have to a max of 150 head. That of course is a devastating reduction.

Now the issue is, why did he stop paying the fees in 1993 and when did BLM make the change to a max of 150 head of cattle? If they are connected, then I can understand him fighting. However if he stopped paying because of the Mormon BS and then later BLM changed the rules to 150 to force him out.. Then he has no rights as he wasn't paying his due.

Even still it is Federal land and the govt does have the ability to change the rules. Meaning just because people might of done some 50 years ago, doesn't mean it will continue today.

Seems over all there is far too much bias on all sides reporting and very little accurate reporting of what led up to this.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 20046532)

Just a theory so far
http://www.naturalnews.com/044670_bl...ndy_ranch.html

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20046521)

i am sure.. and if it's a fracking matter, there is reasons here that matter to all of us. and not just the good people of Nevada.

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog (Post 20046555)

He had no legal recourse because what he is doing is illegal - If he thought it was unjust he should go through the courts like everyone else - Not call up the militia...

I think most of us will be treated in a way that we feel is unjust - Its a good job that we don't all do what he is doing though.....

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog (Post 20046555)

He had no legal recourse because what he is doing is illegal - If he thought it was unjust he should go through the courts like everyone else - Not call up the militia...

I think most of us will be treated in a way that we feel is unjust - Its a good job that we don't all do what he is doing though.....

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20046550)

sure, but there's no reason to kick cattle off that land so they can lease fracking rights. also, this started way back in 1993, long before fracking was on the radar.

It seems like the blm is wanting the land for themselves and kicking peeps off it but I'm not seeing fracking as the reason.

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20046586)

Yea I agree with you. I don't like fracking, but it's not like cows are going to stop it. The wells only take up small areas as well as the holding tanks.

There is just way too much bad info from all sides that seem to be cherry picking parts for their side. With out knowing first hand whats going on it's hard to make a call.

One thing I do not like is the lease for the 40 thousand acres of BLM land going for $1.27 mil and allowing 6 oil & gas companies to essentially pay peanuts to rape public land for profits. That may not be the case here in this situation as the fracking is just a theory but such a small amount of money for a lease like that is fucked up.

If that land was owned by private individuals there is no way in hell the oil & gas companies would get away with only paying $1.27 mil to lease 40 thousand acres. The US tax payer is getting fucked twice once by lack of income from public land and second by the oil & gas companies at the pump.

I will say this, as far as the video, the Rangers did do the right thing at the end. instead of making that situation worse at that moment and pushing the issue likely leading to a more violent confrontation, they got in their trucks and left.

Of course that was then and what happens next guess we will see when actual swat teams get used..

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20046561)

Here's the smoking gun that he could have used to legally resolve this matter::::::


Government plans to euthanize hundreds of threatened desert tortoises it was supposed to protect

Federal funds for a Nevada-based desert tortoise conservation center are running dry and wildlife officials plan to close the facility and euthanize hundreds of tortoises that were once classified as ?endangered? and are currently considered ?threatened.?

http://desertlocalnews.com/governmen...ed-to-protect/

Originally Posted by _Richard_ (Post 20046611)

since the turtles didn't just show up, i can only assume they have been fending for themselves for the entire time humans have been in the area..

Originally Posted by sandman! (Post 20046655)

so its ok not to pay your bills now if you dont want to ?

i dont get it :2 cents::2 cents:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20046456)

A fellow at Forbes by name of David Blackmon offers a level-headed analysis, filed in a different cabinet as it were, of what many consider to be the by-and-large unreported substance of the enmities:

The dispute in question goes back to 1993, when the BLM cut the grazing rights of the rancher in question, Mr. Cliven Bundy, from a herd of thousands of head of cattle to one of no more than 150 head in order to ?protect? a species of desert tortoise that inhabits the same area of the state. Most mainstream news media reports on this story naturally did not inform their readers of this fact, or of the fact that this tiny herd allotment would be spread over the 158,000 acres of land to which Bundy held the grazing rights.

Thus, by effectively slaughtering the bulk of Bundy?s herd in such a blunderbuss way that the varmint interest is scarcely served, BLM can be understood by reasoning folk to have attempted to run Bundy -- and other ranchers -- off the land entirely. Here again is Blackmon:

When one understands these key facts, one realizes that such a tiny herd of cattle on such an enormous space would have no impact at all on the desert tortoise or any other plant or animal that lives there, and that no rancher could possibly make any sort of a living running such a tiny herd. Thus, the obvious conclusion is that BLM rendered its absurd decision with the clear expectation of running the Bundys off the land entirely. And that is a very reasonable conclusion to reach. After all, Mr. Bundy is in fact the ?last man standing? here ? the BLM strategy has worked so well that every other rancher with grazing rights in the region has given up and abandoned what had been their family?s way of life, in many cases, for generations.

Thus, BLM?s regulatory determination and implementation was very arguably, in the language of judicial review as it applies to administrative ?lawmen,? ?arbitrary and capricious? -- and therefore unlawful, whether a federal court has so declared or not.

Originally Posted by sperbonzo (Post 20046867)

I was about to post something similar to this. People who are just saying that Bundy is just a thief needed to get more info on the background of this situation.




.

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog (Post 20046873)

It does sound like he has a genuine grievance - I don't think this the best way of dealing with it though - I also wonder if the whole thing has been hijacked by some groups and unfortunately this farmer is going to come out the worst...

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 20046895)

Forbes and infowars lol

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 20046895)

Forbes and infowars lol

Originally Posted by DWB (Post 20046905)

All this is because the US government wants money to allow his cows to eat their grass on land they are not using, and the guy isn't paying it?

Sorry, I have not been following this. But at a glance, it seems a little silly.