Anyone seen the story of the Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy vs the Fed Govt?

Jim Oaks · Apr 12, 2014

Take a look:

http://rt.com/usa/bundy-ranch-nevada-tensions-940/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/07/nevada-officials-blast-feds-over-treatment-cattle-rancher-cliven-bundy/

Some pretty crazy crap.

Basically, this rancher's family settled here 140 years ago and claims he has an inherent right to graze his cattle. The BLM says he hasn't paid federal grazing fees and are taking his cattle. They have an army or armed people surrounding his ranch.

:shok:

black_demon69 · Apr 12, 2014

i happen to agree with the rancher because this is supposed to be a government by the people for the people. which in my opinion means that the land is owned by the people and not the government. as far i'm concerned he has every right to graze his cattle on that land, and the government is not only violating his rights they are wasting alot of resources for something so petty... just my 2 cents

straycat · Apr 12, 2014

People who try to trespass on my property are warned by signs I have posted. You know what property belongs to you and what belongs to others. He was trespassing and he was wrong. If he had asked for permission I think that would have been fine and dandy. Do you want somebody to come along and dig up the backyard of your home or the side of your home and say they have the right of way do so???

RonD · Apr 12, 2014

Yes, Public Land use is now monitored by the BLM.
The US never had "grazing rights" when it came to public lands which lead to "range wars" in the past and over grazing.
In 1934 public land use rules/laws for grazing was enacted(Taylor Grazing Act) and in 1946 the BLM was formed and given control of licensing permits for private parties to use Public Lands.
Since there was no previous public land "laws" before 1934 there is no "grandfather clause" to allow unlimited use of Public Lands.

Again these are Public Lands, not privately owned, and grazing rights can be applied for and granted if there are no conflicts.

I think it is about $1.50/month per animal for Grazing Rights on BLM land, it varies by State and demand

black_demon69 · Apr 12, 2014

of coarse i was referring to public lands . also there is the fact that his family has been using the land for over 100 years..

Jim Oaks · Apr 12, 2014

Interesting.

The govn't says he owes 1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees.

It makes me wonder what people are thinking, because they know sooner or later they're going to have to answer to it. Does this guy think his cattle should be allowed to graze because his family was there before the Taylor grazing Act? When people get this far in trouble, it makes me think that they truly believe they're in the right.

I found a Fox News video stating what this guys issue is:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3458913371001/standoff-between-ranchers-and-the-feds-intensifies-in-nevada/#sp=show-clips

The guy has an issue with the feds owning over 80% of Nevada, and he doesn't want to pay grazing fees to the Federal Government. He is willing to pay the state of Nevada grazing fees.

There are armed militia groups there showing support.

This could get interesting :popcorn:

tmcalavy · Apr 12, 2014

States rights? Individual rights? Property rights? Mineral rights? What's dat...in third world Omerica we and our rights don't exist. The big push everywhere West of the Big Muddy is owning/getting water rights...the most important and limited natural resource. The food supply is already contained, regulated and distributed in the manner the Fed and business wants, next is water. Welcome to third world Omerica, the future is here.
And if you cite the Constitution, don't count on it...some yeehaws in Worshington are already rewriting it, and history. Yep, I'm a pissy mood today.

Jim Oaks · Apr 12, 2014

I found this pretty interesting:

The video claims Senator Harry Reid is behind the Bundy Ranch conflict in Nevada. Something to do with a China based company wanting to build a solar farm in the area.

adsm08 · Apr 12, 2014

So we the tax payers are now into this fiacso for $966,000 in fees to contractors, plus the law enforcement officials, fuel, equipment costs, etc (sure to equal more than $134,000 the way the Feds count money) over unpaid fees totaling $1.1M.

Also, this land is protected and the fees enacted over a freaking turtle? How much damage do they think cows eating grass will do to a turtle? And what was the status of the land before this?

Additionally, aren't there other, better, cheaper methods of getting these fees from him? Doesn't the IRS have the ability to put a lean on his earnings? Freeze his assets? Isn't that what they do to people who owe a few hundred dollars in back taxes?

I don't care who is wrong or right on the grazing issue. As far as proper and responsible use of tax payer funds, the government is way off the reservation here.

Jim Oaks · Apr 12, 2014

If the fees were due to the IRS, they would have just put him in jail and been done.

adsm08 · Apr 12, 2014

I understand the fees aren't IRS imposed. My point is wouldn't it just be much simpler and easier to freeze his assets until he pays up? Rather than sending armed troops against a citizen who isn't hurting anyone.

Jim Oaks · Apr 12, 2014

Well, the armed troops are to 'seize' his cattle.

kimcrwbr1 · Apr 12, 2014

adsm08 said:
I understand the fees aren't IRS imposed. My point is wouldn't it just be much simpler and easier to freeze his assets until he pays up? Rather than sending armed troops against a citizen who isn't hurting anyone.

This attitude is real disturbing to me because this has nothing to do with with cattle, a turtle or grass but has everything to do with control. Simpler and easier for who the theif or the victum. The people in the end will allways be the victum. That fee for grazing rights to the BLM is supposed to be used to manage the land not line polititions pockets.

tmcalavy · Apr 12, 2014

Grazing rights, late/owed fees, etc., turtle poo needing protection ain't the point...the point is making an example of anyone who stands up to the Fed.

adsm08 · Apr 12, 2014

Jim Oaks said:
Well, the armed troops are to 'seize' his cattle.

An action that would not be "required" should other means of collecting the money allegedly owed been used first.

kimcrwbr1 said:
This attitude is real disturbing to me because this has nothing to do with with cattle, a turtle or grass but has everything to do with control. Simpler and easier for who the theif or the victum. The people in the end will allways be the victum. That fee for grazing rights to the BLM is supposed to be used to manage the land not line polititions pockets.

The point I am trying to make has little to do with what you say disturbs you about my post.

My point is that the government has spent more than was owed in an attempt to collect said owed money when other avenues were likely available. My point here is the irresponsible use of tax money.

I'm not taking sides on the cattle issue because I don't think we have been given all the relevant information. I do think the government is in the wrong, in the extreme, but probably not for the same reasons that some of you do.

Anyone seen the story of the Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy vs the Fed Govt?

Just some guy with a website

Well-Known Member

New Member

Official TRS AI

Well-Known Member

Just some guy with a website

New Member

Just some guy with a website

Senior Master Grease Monkey

Just some guy with a website

Senior Master Grease Monkey

Just some guy with a website

Well-Known Member

New Member

Senior Master Grease Monkey

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Today's birthdays

Member & Vendor Upgrades

Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Amazon Deals