Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch

[nwbobber]

Water rights have easements documented, they aren't blanket cessations of land by the government to the user. I have hunted range land also, I just leave when the cattle are there, the ranchers move them because the food only lasts so long. I don't hunt water holes, I find it ethically wrong in dry areas, and don't really need to.

The Hage case is NOT this case, and the fact that Bundy ceased paying his fees probably terminates any rights he may have had if he kept up his end of the bargain. Water rights are associated with easements that have only to do with access to the water. The Hage case only addresses the property rights on these easements, the water, and the rights to range improvements. They also gave the Hages back their grazing rights, however they didn't grant them a freebies, the fees were intact. Bundy doesn't just get to decide not to hold up his end of the bargain, and enjoy all the benefits that others who fulfill their responsibilities do.

Bundy has had opportunities to document his supposed rights, and has not done so. The document they tell of being sold down through the generations may or may not be a legally recognized document. So far he cannot document it's origin. Shoot if you could just make something like that up... Sign me up.

The government terminated his grazing rights in 1994, so I doubt he is entitled to any compensation for range work since then, he may have to pay to remove it. I'm not talking water rights here, if the BLM destroyed water conveyances to the Bundy property, I believe that is wrong and they will be held accountable. Conveyances to grazing land that they do not have rights to, placed after 1994, I think they should send him a bill for the effort to remove it.

For me, I would just as soon see access to range by livestock be phased out. Cattle are the least efficient at converting low grade forage to protein as compared to deer, elk, pronghorn, or bison. We don't have to have fences all over preventing these animals from flourishing, and gives us hunters more opportunity to do for ourselves. Maybe we would end up with more young people hunting, and learning about firearms in a positive way, not like what is going on regarding this squatter.

If I see a link to a right wing website concerning a court case, I won't read it. Been there, done that, will not allow hand picked excerpts to be taken out of context to make me believe an untrue scenario is true. That is called propaganda.

 

[Caveman Jim]

I have read through this thread, forgive me if I don't follow links to Fox News or the right wing/anarchist press. The land in question is public land, the authorized (by congress) manager of said public land is the BLM. The administration of grazing districts established by Taylor Grazing Act also fell to BLM by congressional action. Grazing Fees were established in 1978, by congress, and apparently paid by Bundy until 1993. The law supports the fees, the management by the BLM, the Nevada Constitution gives legal permission (article 1 section 2)for the federal government to enforce federal laws on federal land with armed force.

Bundy's "rights" grazing, water, or otherwise, on public land are subject to change by the BLM, this is supported by law. How can anyone expect that management principals used when this was a territory could still serve well with increasing herd sizes, increasing population (the "public", the owners of the land in question), conflicting demands on the use of the land, etc. The ranchers asked for this help managing the land, and the TGA was the result. The only protected water rights that fit the arguments I have heard in this thread pertain to owned property. If he had an easement to a stream for water rights, that still wouldn't have anything to do with grazing rights on the (other)public land. Even if it did, the dirtbag should pay us (the public) the fees that are owed, and thank us for making him a very rich man.

This guy has had his day in court, he is a law breaker. I have as much right to that land as Bundy does, and I think it's ridiculous that the feds are selling this rich guy rights to graze cattle on our land for 1.35 per (cow and calf pair) per month. I raise cattle on my own land feed them MY grass, nobody gives me anything, let him compete with THAT.

If anyone believes Bundy's argument that the cattle do just fine with the wildlife, well I can say that they probably have never hunted on range land. Cattle eat the food; If I see cattle, I move on. The deer, elk, and antelope already did. If this jerk doesn't want to pay the mere pittance the BLM is asking for his grazing, I think their are some hungry folks that might interpret this as an invite to Nevada to harvest some publicly owned cattle.

We can sure see your stance on illegal immigration can't we? Give these lawbreakers everything provide to legal American taxpayers... But hold and hold and destroy an American who breaks (allegedly) grazing rights laws...
Sure tells ya something about some of you goody two shoe so called Americans....

 

[Riot]

I have read through this thread, forgive me if I don't follow links to Fox News or the right wing/anarchist press. The land in question is public land, the authorized (by congress) manager of said public land is the BLM. The administration of grazing districts established by Taylor Grazing Act also fell to BLM by congressional action. Grazing Fees were established in 1978, by congress, and apparently paid by Bundy until 1993. The law supports the fees, the management by the BLM, the Nevada Constitution gives legal permission (article 1 section 2)for the federal government to enforce federal laws on federal land with armed force.

Bundy's "rights" grazing, water, or otherwise, on public land are subject to change by the BLM, this is supported by law. How can anyone expect that management principals used when this was a territory could still serve well with increasing herd sizes, increasing population (the "public", the owners of the land in question), conflicting demands on the use of the land, etc. The ranchers asked for this help managing the land, and the TGA was the result. The only protected water rights that fit the arguments I have heard in this thread pertain to owned property. If he had an easement to a stream for water rights, that still wouldn't have anything to do with grazing rights on the (other)public land. Even if it did, the dirtbag should pay us (the public) the fees that are owed, and thank us for making him a very rich man.

This guy has had his day in court, he is a law breaker. I have as much right to that land as Bundy does, and I think it's ridiculous that the feds are selling this rich guy rights to graze cattle on our land for 1.35 per (cow and calf pair) per month. I raise cattle on my own land feed them MY grass, nobody gives me anything, let him compete with THAT.

If anyone believes Bundy's argument that the cattle do just fine with the wildlife, well I can say that they probably have never hunted on range land. Cattle eat the food; If I see cattle, I move on. The deer, elk, and antelope already did. If this jerk doesn't want to pay the mere pittance the BLM is asking for his grazing, I think their are some hungry folks that might interpret this as an invite to Nevada to harvest some publicly owned cattle.

Want to know what would have prevented a lot of this? If instead of diverting money, time and resources to cattle cars, a helicopter and dozens of agents to confiscate a man's livelyhood (his cattle), the BLM could have built a fence, locked it and ensured nobody went through without paying their toll that you, and many other statists, are adamant that the Bundy's owe...

If Bundy's truly owe the government for back fees then take them to court, not try to pull the rug out from under them and take their cows!

That's it...that's where people really had problems with this...then when people tried to take the cows before the BLM (because aparently the BLM were going to auction them off) the BLM tried to use force on them...they roughed up a pregnant lady, TASERed people and then had an armed posture.

Regardless of land issues, fees and conspiracy theories about China wanting the land for Solar Power- the majority of the people that have an issue with this aren't necessarily taking Bundy's side saying "screw the government and their taxes!" They're saying "hey, they're taking his cows and intimidating people, that's not right!"

If you can't at least get that that is why a lot of people are upset over then then I'm sorry for you, there's nothing I, or anyone here, can do for you to wake you up from your bias ignorance.

 

[gaijinsamurai]

If Bundy's truly owe the government for back fees then take them to court, not try to pull the rug out from under them and take their cows!
.

I or my source may be wrong, but I read somewhere that the Feds took Bundy to court twice, and both times, Bundy lost.

 

[nwbobber]

Just because I don't sing in harmony with you all, I am an ignorant statist? Whatever.

I'm not an anarchist, I think laws are needed, especially to manage giveaways like grazing on federal land. Bundy has been at this for twenty years for crying out loud, the courts haven't been able to keep him from stealing from us, the public, who own the land.

I don't think the BLM is responsible for the escalation, who used the term range war first, anyway?

 

[jjackffrost]

If the BLM would have done this in the court room this would not have even made the news, but the excessive force that was brought to bear is starting to piss some people off and it is sigh of Tyrannyon the federal government part. Owing money is no reason to go in with an army and kill or threaten to kill people. Intimidation is a mob tactic, If this was the first time it would have been given a pass but it was not. and what about the Drones, Snipers, 1st Amendment Zones, No Fly Zones , Extreme protester intimidation, Slaughtering dozens of cows, BLM major mismanagement of the land in the first place . Remember these blast from the past three swat teams and Police Confiscate Yogurt and raw milk at Gunpoint and trash store, Gibson Guitar raid two swat teams and armored vehicles, The Waco siege, ECT ECT… I could put in ten of the top of my head just from Washington and Oregon. That's why we are starting to get a little anoid at this stuff.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I have read through this thread, forgive me if I don't follow links to Fox News or the right wing/anarchist press. The land in question is public land, the authorized (by congress) manager of said public land is the BLM. The administration of grazing districts established by Taylor Grazing Act also fell to BLM by congressional action. Grazing Fees were established in 1978, by congress, and apparently paid by Bundy until 1993. The law supports the fees, the management by the BLM, the Nevada Constitution gives legal permission (article 1 section 2)for the federal government to enforce federal laws on federal land with armed force.

Bundy's "rights" grazing, water, or otherwise, on public land are subject to change by the BLM, this is supported by law. How can anyone expect that management principals used when this was a territory could still serve well with increasing herd sizes, increasing population (the "public", the owners of the land in question), conflicting demands on the use of the land, etc. The ranchers asked for this help managing the land, and the TGA was the result. The only protected water rights that fit the arguments I have heard in this thread pertain to owned property. If he had an easement to a stream for water rights, that still wouldn't have anything to do with grazing rights on the (other)public land. Even if it did, the dirtbag should pay us (the public) the fees that are owed, and thank us for making him a very rich man.

This guy has had his day in court, he is a law breaker. I have as much right to that land as Bundy does, and I think it's ridiculous that the feds are selling this rich guy rights to graze cattle on our land for 1.35 per (cow and calf pair) per month. I raise cattle on my own land feed them MY grass, nobody gives me anything, let him compete with THAT.

If anyone believes Bundy's argument that the cattle do just fine with the wildlife, well I can say that they probably have never hunted on range land. Cattle eat the food; If I see cattle, I move on. The deer, elk, and antelope already did. If this jerk doesn't want to pay the mere pittance the BLM is asking for his grazing, I think their are some hungry folks that might interpret this as an invite to Nevada to harvest some publicly owned cattle.

The government's own expert witness testified that the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act did not extinguish the grazing rights established in Nevada prior to it's passage. Bundy's grazing rights were established in 1877. BTW, water rights on BLM administered land, which Bundy has a deed for, come with incidental grazing rights.

As to hunting on range land, I do so every year on my family's ranches in Oregon. I have 7 bucks in 12 years (3 years I did not draw tags) to show for it, all on range land grazed by cattle.

What's next? Will we be taking private range land and giving it to the BLM to "manage" because ownership was established in 1875, and such ownership only works with "management principals used when [Oregon] was a territory"? Will my family's 9600 acres suddenly become "BLM land", and be subject to "modern management principles"? That's where this is headed, and it's what has happened to Bundy.

This whole thing begins to fall into place quite nicely when you read this self-congratulatory BLM article:

<broken link removed>

There are 50 new renewable energy sites on western public land since Obama took office in 2009. This construction is a part of his Climate Change mitigation plan. First Solar, one of his favored renewable energy companies (run by a former Enron executive) is currently working on two new sites. These sites are taking thousands of acres of public land and pushing use by the public off that land. Likewise, it is pushing endangered wildlife, including the desert tortoise, off that land. The article speaks of mitigation efforts to relocate the desert tortoises. Bundy's Gold Butte grazing rights and his cattle were smack dab where the BLM planned to relocate those desert tortoises. This is a boondoggle. Harry Reid and his son are neck deep in this, and so is the current administration. Millions of dollars are being raked in by politicians doling out the use of public lands to energy companies that are being propped up by government subsidies. That's the truth of it. If you want to gripe about freeloaders, try taking a look at the finances of First Solar.

 

[Riot]

I or my source may be wrong, but I read somewhere that the Feds took Bundy to court twice, and both times, Bundy lost.

There may have been a court case saying if the Bundy cows came back on BLM land then it was fine to confiscate... But let's go down that rabbit hole shall we?

How much money do you think a Federally confiscated cow could be auctioned off for? Couple grand a head? How much money do you think the BLM dumped into this operation? A couple hundred grand?

So what's the real goal here? To pay the fee or to bankrupt Bundy and make an example of him? So yeah, some judge with his hands in Harry Reid's pocket may have given the BLM a green light to put a gun to Bundy's temple, but you know what? I don't freeking care, and neither should you! In fact, that pisses me off even more since the judge doesn't have any godd@mn common sense!

You're telling me regardless of how many times Bundy had been to court (and is STILL in court) and proven to be the victim of an overreaching government, when one judge said "screw that redneck and his cows" the BLM was automatically in the right?

How about this...a court order to Bundy to turn over his cows to the BLM until all fees paid? No, we'll just play tag with the BLM since they have a helicopter?

BLM COW OBSERVATION POST #1-"Base, I have confirmation. Multiple targets insight. Request air support."

BASE- "Copy that COW POST 1, aircraft inbound."

BLM COW CONFISCATOR- "Base, be advised I have multiple hostiles interfering with my duties. Request permission to TASER pregnant women, post sniper overwatch and AR15s. They're mounted on some type of four-legged domesticated animal that makes them more intimidating."

BASE- "Permission granted. Help on the way. Army has been notified."



Reeeally?


That's all I've got on this...I really don't care if the President had one of his fancy executive orders written just to take his freekin cows, it still wasn't right.

*Riot Out*

 

[fredball]

I tried to tell people but they all told me I was wrong now here it is proof I was right


http://www.teaparty.org/report-bund...e=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=social

 

[oknow]

I tried to tell people but they all told me I was wrong now here it is proof I was right

http://www.teaparty.org/report-bund...e=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=social

I bet people telling you you were wrong are the same people that were saying Obama didn't want to take your guns.

 

[nwbobber]

The government's own expert witness testified that the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act did not extinguish the grazing rights established in Nevada prior to it's passage. Bundy's grazing rights were established in 1877. BTW, water rights on BLM administered land, which Bundy has a deed for, come with incidental grazing rights.

Bundy cannot, or has not documented this.

What's next? Will we be taking private range land and giving it to the BLM to "manage" because ownership was established in 1875, and such ownership only works with "management principals used when [Oregon] was a territory"? Will my family's 9600 acres suddenly become "BLM land", and be subject to "modern management principles"? That's where this is headed, and it's what has happened to Bundy.

This is hardly the same, I know many people are saying that, probably because they take everything Bundy, and Fox etc. says at face value. This is about grazing cattle on public land for twenty years after he was ordered off, for nonpayment of grazing fees, which are too low to begin with. I will concede that there are some property issues that will have to be sorted out in court because of the way this was handled, but there again the reason this was not handled in court (Really? This was settled in court, Bundy lost, refused to honor the courts decision, what could he expect to happen?) as you all say was that Bundy called for a range war.


I don't like freeloaders, especially corporate freeloaders, in fact despise them. I you want to vilify the solar industry in this, well I don't know what to tell you. That's for another thread. Do you think one corporate freeloader is holier than another?

 

[nwbobber]

A 750 lb feeder steer is worth 1350 on todays market, not all cattle on range land are ready to go to a feedlot, the bulls are worth more, the calves are worth less. Bundy's cattle are made of (they are what they eat) stolen forage, so ownership is in question. People keep inflating the value to ridiculous levels.

 

[nwbobber]

If Harry Reids business interests, or that of his son have anything to do with this, there will be hell to pay. Right now just sayin' it don't make it so. All you need to take Bundy's cattle from him, is the string of actions Bundy took in violation of the law. The fact that he duped a bunch of innocent people into fighting for him is the biggest crime here.

 

[cookie]

Does Bundy have a title or a deed to the property - if not to me he is nothing more than a squatter. To me he wants to control of a piece of property that he has no legal right to just because he and his family has had the privilege of using it for decades does not mean he has the right to use it forever. Using armed force to take over property that does belong to you is stealing in my opinion.

I don't think you are understanding the term SQUATTER. You are not understanding grazing rights or what is going on. You need to do more in depth reading, not that you learn from the talking heads on the mainstream media. The first thing is cattle is food and the most important thing is food and to war against anything that stops healthy food production.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Bundy cannot, or has not documented this.



This is hardly the same, I know many people are saying that, probably because they take everything Bundy, and Fox etc. says at face value. This is about grazing cattle on public land for twenty years after he was ordered off, for nonpayment of grazing fees, which are too low to begin with. I will concede that there are some property issues that will have to be sorted out in court because of the way this was handled, but there again the reason this was not handled in court (Really? This was settled in court, Bundy lost, refused to honor the courts decision, what could he expect to happen?) as you all say was that Bundy called for a range war.


I don't like freeloaders, especially corporate freeloaders, in fact despise them. I you want to vilify the solar industry in this, well I don't know what to tell you. That's for another thread. Do you think one corporate freeloader is holier than another?

Wayne Hage lost several times in court before finally winning $4.5 million from the BLM on appeal. The arguments were precisely the same, same water rights, same grazing rights. The government admitted on the stand that Hage [and presumably Bundy's] predated BLM authority. At what point in 1877 did people document everything pertaining to their land in writing and have it certified. There are thousands of ranches out there that have flaws in the paper trail leading to official title. Will those all be overridden too?

And BTW, the judge in the Hage case held two BLM employees in contempt of court for skirting the truth and using strong arm tactics on Hage's customers and suppliers. He even forbid one BLM official from ever again supervising any BLM employee in the state of Nevada. What do you think should happen to the BLM employees who summarily executed Bundy's cattle and attempted to hide the evidence in a hasty mass grave?

Duped? Who's being duped? When the BLM comes for your land and cattle who's going to stand up for you?

 

[JRuby]

I will stand with you if they come for your privarte deeded property however I will not help you take over public lands for your owne benefit because you tell me your grand father said something. Without evidence of such fact it is mere hear say to me. Bundy has tried twice now to prove he owned the deeds to the water rights - prove it. He sure as heck did hmself no good when he refused to pay those fees to the righful owner of that property - the federal government. I make no excuses for how the federal government handled the cattle however after 21 years, losing in court twice and still failing to follow court orders Bundy is doing himself no favors.

BY the way all of those messed up deeds are the property owners repsonsiblility to fix - if they choose not correct them they take thier chances. There are no free rides as far as I am cocnerned.

 

[fredball]

Bundy cannot, or has not documented this.



This is hardly the same, I know many people are saying that, probably because they take everything Bundy, and Fox etc. says at face value. This is about grazing cattle on public land for twenty years after he was ordered off, for nonpayment of grazing fees, which are too low to begin with. I will concede that there are some property issues that will have to be sorted out in court because of the way this was handled, but there again the reason this was not handled in court (Really? This was settled in court, Bundy lost, refused to honor the courts decision, what could he expect to happen?) as you all say was that Bundy called for a range war.


I don't like freeloaders, especially corporate freeloaders, in fact despise them. I you want to vilify the solar industry in this, well I don't know what to tell you. That's for another thread. Do you think one corporate freeloader is holier than another?

Fox is the only news outlet doing any reporting so where are you getting your info from ????? So slaughtering his Cattle and digging a mass grave is all okie dokie, Just Administration is out of control . every other word form berry satoro is a LIE

 

[willseeker]

If Harry Reids business interests, or that of his son have anything to do with this, there will be hell to pay.

Whatever!

Jamie Dimon, Jon Corzine...ad naseum, haven't been held accountable for their corporate malfeasance so why on earth do you think 'Reid the butcher' will have "hell to pay"?

 

[willseeker]

I will stand with you if they come for your privarte deeded property

Sure you will…not!

 

[JRuby]

Sure you will…not!

What are you actually trying to say Will - that I do not respect an individuals rights to property - especially property where there is a clean and clear title to it. Where do you plan to stand Will when the time comes if it ever does - at home.