Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What's the right resolution re: Bundy?

From that point on, he had nothing to lose
======

Yes,he did and you're now seeing the extent of how much.

When I lease another person's property, I follow their rules, not mine.

Lastly, you can call 20 years of litigation, 2 federal court orders and an appellate order,coupled with many peaceful attempts to resolve it without force a "stroke of the pen" if you like, but it certainly isn't a credible comment.

Pretty much all the regulatory federal Alphabet Agencies have SWAT and the same equipment as the military.

I think it's time we revise and update the Posse Comitatus Act. They have included more forces to it before.

well we all know that when it comes down to it, a local Jury can decide whatever they want to, based upon the evidence and understanding presented.

a Jury rules, after the pro's and con's are considered.

it's down to people who live, breathe air, and endeavor to make the correct decision.

it's as simple or complex as that.

Sure it's credible. That instant in 1993 when they cut his allotment/permit by 75% without even the common courtesy of Vaseline, to accommodate the Center for Biologic Diversity is when it happened. What part of that moment in time do you need explained?

And, BTW. It's not the same as leasing a condo in terms of real estate lease. You know the difference. You just aren't saying so. Plus he owns the water rights and improvements thereof, so they may take back possession of the house, but he still owns the plumbing.

Plus he owns the water rights and improvements thereof,
=======

Really? Prove it to me.

It was against federal law for him to improve anything.

OR....

They could set aside the judgment in his case and much like when the Jim Crow laws were stricken, or revised, new legislation can right the wrongs to avoid future bloody standoffs due to an unfair system. He certainly seems to have the public support for revision of something. Unless Reid and DumDum want their whole house of cards to come tumbling down. (Whish they probably will anyway.)

I'd agree with both you and Gus so that all three of us could be dead wrong but I'll take a pass and let you guys wallow in your own cluelessness.

Do you really want to play the dumb card again?

Of course I can prove it. They are filed with the state of Nevada. Just like mine are filed with the state. I know because I have these. They may own the ground the well sits on, but I own the pump, tanks, waterlines, water troughs, and generators or windmills that run them.

Who told you that you couldn't make improvements? I can improve about anything I want to. I just can't build a house or another commercial venture like a pistachio farm on it.

Spare me the dumb card, son. My posts would have been far lessened save for armchair Infowar's lawyers spouting stupidity in these Bundy threads.

Who told you that you couldn't make improvements?
========

No one told me I couldn't make improvements. Bundy couldn't make improvements.

If you knew anything about cows, you would know how stupid that statement is. Since the day they put down to 150 cows, he has had nothing to lose. A man can't make a living on 150 cows and his 160 acres is probably worth 50$ an acre without the cows. He has nothing to lose. For the last 20 years, he has been playing with house money. And I guarantee you that he does not have a dime to his name. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if that land isn't even in his name now and given how long the feds have drug ass on this, they might not be able to get it now.

This is a man with nothing to lose and playing with house money. He has buffaloed the feds for 20 years and made them play to his tune and made a nice living while doing it.

Thanks for that awesome insight,amigo. I'm sure you're spot on.

Sure he can. With limitations to type of course.

Here's his 11 filed water rights with the state of Nevada.

Some of us actually know stuff. Others just like to make fun of those who do. Bundy is judgment proof.

=============

Yep...those cattle and his home and land are worth nothing. You nailed it.

Pretty small pickin's compared to what a ranch headquarters, water rights, and a 600 head permit on 600,000 acres is worth as a working ranch.

Makes one wonder what the 450 head permit on 450,000 acres (that they took from him) would be worth. Oh wait... Reid has his finger on what that's worth.

Are you literally stupid? He wouldn't have the cattle if he followed the BLM's rules. The only reason he has the cattle is because he is a scofflaw. Otherwise he wouldn't have the cattle. Geez, you are dense.

As for the house and the land. Meh, it is worth less than nothing if he can't graze the cattle on the adjacent allotment. Heck, some of it is probably even exempt from judgment in Nevada given that it is his homestead.

.

Im rather confused here . Am I to understand that you�re an attorney ?
No offence meant by that , im just wondering why it is that some of these things you don�t understand or already know.


So , actual yes he can and in fact its part of his requirements .
unless of course your going to say he doesn�t and never has had a permit. in which case there was nothing for the BLM to take away . so we end up back tracking all the way back , step by step tell we get to his original land claims , water rights and thus grazing right .
but lets skip all that and address the reasoning of his permit , which the BLM supposedly had a right to take away .
part of the Permit application , which i thought you had a copy of one , , requires him to not only make improvements to the water supplies itself but also lands , IE water shed itself . in other words maintaining erosion that could be possibly caused by his grazing. Doing so requires , stock tanks so as to help reduce the cattle impact on stream banks or natural watering holes .
In some case even wells so as to provide a water source not only for his cattle but also an additional water supply for wildlife during low water years ..
Corrals , loading shoots and such must be built in order to reduce the damage and provide for controlled release and retrieval.
There are also requirements for placing and maintain salt and mineral stations so as to reduce the effects of the cattle on natural sources

Just a small clip from the 1978 range improvement act
�No less than 80 percent of funds appropriated for the Act must be used for on-ground range rehabilitation, construction and maintenance of range improvements, and training of personnel. The Secretary must distribute funds as advisable after careful consultation and coordination with district grazing advisory boards, advisory councils, range user representatives and other interested parties. The Secretary must give priority to entering into cooperative agreements with range users or user groups for the installation and maintenance of on-ground range improvements. �

Are you literally stupid? He wouldn't have the cattle if he followed the BLM's rules. The only reason he has the cattle is because he is a scofflaw. Otherwise he wouldn't have the cattle. Geez, you are dense.
========

I guess I'm literally stupid. Maybe you could help me become smarter.

Does he have cattle? Is he a scofflaw? If he has cattle and he's a scofflaw, does that mean the cattle have no value?

If 160 acres with a house near Vegas is worth nothing,can you help me take that investment worry off Bundy's back for 1000 bucks?

There's a crisp new Grant in it for you if you can power-broker the deal.