Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Nevada Cattlemen's Association Does Not Support Bundy

"Far NW Montana"? in your caption?

I understand the Las Vegas thing but MT is without excuse. A lot of those "solid republican" ranchers will vote dhimmicrap for the fedgov handout but won't talk about it, obviously.

Hopefully, I'll be a Republican conservative vote in MT soon. All I need is some fool...errrr...sharp businessman to buy my water rights.

I pay more property tax in MT than in NV.

Well good for you, that is grand country. Never been much north of Seely Lake headed into the Bob but that is grand country. Got an army buddy who's dad lives up on the Kootenai R. He owes me a fishing trip. Never been to NV and don't plan to go, too dry. East of the divide in MT is dryer than I prefer.

'

Kinda' reminiscent of YOUR status here, on this forum I'd venture.

Put up some sorta' POLL, soliciting support for your demented rants.

You'll get less support than Bundy, and be rated higher in coefficient of idiocy,....I guarn-goddamtee, and betcha'.

GTC

When I get moved to my small house in Libby, three blocks from the drift boat take out on the Kootenai in the middle of town, you'll be welcomed
.
Kokanee fishing on Kocanusa can be fantastic in July and August!

Come on up.

From the link......
"Nevada Division of Water Resources records show Cliven Bundy has 11 grandfathered claims for water. They are located in Virgin River Valley and the Gold Butte area. Ten of the claims pertain to springs and the remaining one is for a creek."
Someone help me here......if it can be established that the Bundy's have grandfathered water claims,does Nevada have a state land office that can establish that the Bundy's have grandfathered grazing claims?
Or is that to easy?

Simple answer...No

Grazing is done on Federal lands for the most part. There is little open State land.

aint the ranchers sending democrats.....and it is alot more complicated than that.....the democrat thing in Montana traces back to mining and not ranching.....one company controlled the state up into the 70's which is where the conservative democrats in Montana come from.....those against the Anaconda Company....

ASU has a very good Econ program....but I imagine SBH couldn't find the campus salon, let alone a class room.

I'm guessing the verified grandfathered water claims must be on the same federal lands that the Bundy's insist they have grazing claims to.
Can't see his grandfather applying for water claims in an area that distant from his herds.
But if it was that simple we never would have heard of Cliven Bundy.

The bottom line.... it seems to me....is that the Federal Govt owns everything including the land your home sits on. Most of the time it is to their benefit to allow the "owners" to believe it is theirs in order to collect payment of taxes. But eminent domain is proof that none of us really owns property. Well none of us except those who are wealthy enough to be powerful in some way so as to deter such problems. One could argue "grandfathering" clauses all you want but the govt is always right (even when they're wrong) and they'll always win. The only thing our government respect is money and power. That's kind of ironic considering whence it was founded.

Bundy is a good man fighting tyranny.

Sam Adams...

Put your enemy in the wrong and keep him there.

Even if the feds are right, (which I don't believe they are) they are wrong...

The whole Cattlemen's statement is worth reading:
http://www.nevadacattlemen.org/CMDocs/NevadaCattlemen/NCA%20Post%20Gather%20Statement.pdf

It's written by Bundy's peers. Their statement is very sensible and articulate.

They are saying it's a complicated issue, and it is. They are saying the government plays an important role in land management, and that they can sympathize with Bundy's predicament.

However, in accordance with the rule of law, we must use the system set forth in our Constitution to change those laws and regulations. Nevada Cattlemen's Association does not condone actions that are outside the law in which citizens take the law into their own hands

If that's the stance of this conservative group of Nevada Cattlemen, people resisting the law with the threat of violence should think, hard, if they have the support of the American people in general. If not, they have no chance of "winning" in the long run.

Without the implicit threat of violence, there is no chance of "winning" at the ballot box or elsewhere.

This Bundy thing is still in the news. Had he simply laid down, you and I would have never heard about it. Now, we have state representatives in the western states organizing conferences to discuss taking back federal land. We have men in Congress calling for investigations. We have dozens of stories about similar BLM heavy handedness. We know about Harry Reid's Chinese shenanigans. And we have people everywhere, instead of simply taking the government's position at face value, talking about it and discussing what the role of government should be in these sorts of things.

Bundy did this, simply because he wasn't willing to lay down and because the threat of violence was there. Had there not been a few guns in that crowd, every protester there would have been zip tied and put on a jail bus. But because there were, it is a rallying cry.

It was the best propaganda ever and facts don't matter with propaganda. Emotions carry the day. And one of the primary emotions right now in rural America is a hearty sickness of all things government.

What's their stance on the GOV'T ignoring the "system set forth in our Constitution..."?

Would they support the resistance of 'illegal' laws??

Good post, and spot on..

that is a good post

The Bundy thing demonstrated something that I've always said about the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment isn't about winning a gun fight with government goons. That isn't going to happen. Is there any doubt that the 200 BLM officers could have killed every protester there in minutes had they wanted to do so? I don't think so. The 2nd Amendment is about having the freedom and the ability to FORCE the government to kill you if you choose to resist.

There have been plenty of governments around the world that would do that in a heartbeat. But most of the time, that hasn't been the case with ours. But an unarmed man? Well, it is but a simple matter to overpower him and bundle him off somewhere. It requires little moral fortitude to use non-lethal means on a "lawbreaker". But when you have to kill a lawbreaker? Well, suddenly you have to make a decision and if that lawbreaker looks like your mom, your dad, your kid sister, or your brother and is not an actual criminal, you now have to consider if enforcing that particular law on that particular day is worth shedding blood over.

And that is what happened in Nevada. On that day, the BLM and those guys on the ground, decided that it wasn't worth killing men, women, and children in order to enforce a civil order. And because of the 2nd Amendment, that is what they would have had to do...kill them.

You clarify the point that Richard Mack was making.

A LOT of folks just plumb MISSED that point entirely.

GTC

Bundy paid his grazing fees to Clark county and the State over the last 20 years. I listen to Bundy on the Sam Serbo Show today and he said every rancher in the area has been run out of business and that he was the last one standing and decided to fight back. It appears the BLM is exercising emanate domain on the cheap.

You've hit the nail on the head. We the People have always been serfs from day one. You are right that we do not own our property but merely rent it from the government and the land can be taken at anytime for any reason. Wasn't it Connecticut that had that problem a few years back with big money and SCOTUS ruled in favor of Big Money.

BTW: Big Money founded this country not We the People. It's always been this way since day one.