BLM stand-off in Nevada...close to 'war' or 'Range War'

[captnviper]

From reading his wife's blog the BLM have used regulation to run all the neighboring ranches out of business. Sounds like a tactic employed for land grabs. The ranchers sure didn't mind paying when the BLM was in their pockets and running everybody else out! Guess Government has always been for sale.

[Thunder71]

One itchy trigger finger is all it's going to take for this to erupt... sounds all too familiar.

[xd ED]

One itchy trigger finger is all it's going to take for this to erupt... sounds all too familiar.

Yep. And the rancher is dropping terms like 'Waco', and 'Ruby Ridge'.
This doesn't seem to be about what it's about.

[jgalt]

One itchy trigger finger is all it's going to take for this to erupt... sounds all too familiar.

Yep. And the rancher is dropping terms like 'Waco', and 'Ruby Ridge'.
This doesn't seem to be about what it's about.

The only statements we've seen / heard are from the rancher - who knows what he's been told by the various agents of the government over the past 20+ years, and more recently especially that might legitimately lead him to believe that to be the case.

The problem with the story is the story itself. There isn't anywhere near enough info to be able to make an informed decision one way or the other, only enough for those on each side to confirm their own biases. Mine is that whether or not the government is "at fault" or "started it", they pretty much always make things worse than they need to be - which definitely seems to be the case here. The fact the rancher didn't pay grazing fees for a few years before the land became off limits completely so as to protect the desert turtle - making him the "bad guy" - confirms others'...

Not that this is anything new of course. The "news" has been doing the general public a great disservice in many cases for about as long as it has existed.

[Nougat]

I'd prefer eating something that was able to move around and ate something growing from the ground. rather than a penned up special diet to accommodate for it thing.

seems ''they'' are making that more difficult/expensive rather than affordable and likely.
I'm probably too much of a simpleton to know whats good for me though?

[captnviper]

Love this!

[Kaveman]

Love this!

I don't think the first amendment should ever be confined to an area!

FISRT AMENDMENT AREA

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1397239401.032955.jpg (13.2 KB) Viewed 2467 times

[gunsmith]

[Randygmn]

As much as I would like to sympathize with the rancher, I just can't. He has failed to pay grazing fees for at least 20 years and has run up a bill of over one million dollars. This issue is not one over a desert tortise but one of non-payment for use.

If he would have paid his fees this issue would not have taken place. My gripe is that the Feds allowed this behavior to go for so long before taking action. They should have taken action after only a couple of no payments as any other property owner would have done.

That this rancher and his family have been using open range for over a century has little to do with it, they still didn't own the land. I may rent an apartment for decades but that does not give me ownership of that residence. Maybe a false sense of entitlement but still no ownership. If he does not like the law requiring him to pay fees (rent) to use public land then he should have gotten the law changed. Until then, he still has to abide by the current law or face the consequences.

This rancher does not have a leg to stand on in my book. He is attempting to use emotion to end up with his desired outcome no matter what the law or reality says. I am not a fan of those kinds of tactics and they are reprehensible no matter which side uses them.

This is a states right issue. Nothing else. Bunch has been paying his grazing fees. Just not to the Feds. He's been paying Clark county.

[Mn01r6]

This is a states right issue. Nothing else. Bunch has been paying his grazing fees. Just not to the Feds. He's been paying Clark county.

The more I learn the more I don't like about the Feds' actions, but if it is a state's rights issue, then shouldn't the state should be asserting their rights, not the individual farmer?

[captnviper]

This is a states right issue. Nothing else. Bunch has been paying his grazing fees. Just not to the Feds. He's been paying Clark county.

The more I learn the more I don't like about the Feds' actions, but if it is a state's rights issue, then shouldn't the state should be asserting their rights, not the individual farmer?

Because they were bought off by the renewable energy peeps with political contributions. It's in there interest to never let anyone drill shale oil.

[MXGreg]

Here's something else worth reading:

Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-ha ... ndy-ranch/

[george]

I'm going edit it to say, ALL politicians are as crooked as a stick, some more than others!!!

[Deputyhiro]

This is about state's rights, and govt over reach. The fed isnt going to stop. Its about time someone stands up to them.
The shot heard round the world.

[smurfman]

As much as I would like to sympathize with the rancher, I just can't. He has failed to pay grazing fees for at least 20 years and has run up a bill of over one million dollars. This issue is not one over a desert tortise but one of non-payment for use.

If he would have paid his fees this issue would not have taken place. My gripe is that the Feds allowed this behavior to go for so long before taking action. They should have taken action after only a couple of no payments as any other property owner would have done.

That this rancher and his family have been using open range for over a century has little to do with it, they still didn't own the land. I may rent an apartment for decades but that does not give me ownership of that residence. Maybe a false sense of entitlement but still no ownership. If he does not like the law requiring him to pay fees (rent) to use public land then he should have gotten the law changed. Until then, he still has to abide by the current law or face the consequences.

This rancher does not have a leg to stand on in my book. He is attempting to use emotion to end up with his desired outcome no matter what the law or reality says. I am not a fan of those kinds of tactics and they are reprehensible no matter which side uses them.

This is a states right issue. Nothing else. Bunch has been paying his grazing fees. Just not to the Feds. He's been paying Clark county.

How is it a state's rights issue when the Federal government is the title holder? The agreement Bundy had was with the U.S. Government which he was aware of through previous payments and a host of legal proceedings. Paying the fees to a secondary party in lieu of the actual title holder should not have a different result than paying your home mortgage to TCF when the loan is held by Wells Fargo.

His only recourse is if he was paying the grazing fees into an escrow account which it appears is not the case. As the BLM grazing fees historically are considerably less than those received if this was private property I do not cut Bundy any more slack than I would GE or other governmentally subsidized company. That he has welshed on even those payments places him lower in my book- almost as low as those officials who have dragged their feet resolving this. Highly doubt any of us would be able to remain in our homes and run our businesses for 20 years if we stopped making our payments.