It's a complicated mess but what's a fair way to settle the issue?

Does Bundy get to decide what's fair?

The fine folks on the fire get to decide what's fair.








Is Cliven Bundy a member?

First determine the actual owner of the land in question. Then he should pay the associated permit fees if they exist.

Personally I think there is more going on here than we are privy too. Seemed like an awful large show of militaristic force up front for just a few "free grazers" and a bunch of cattle.

Hmmmm......life ain't fair!!

Resolution- hang Harry.

yes

Nobody ever listens to Col. [bleep] Troutman!

Just leave the schit alone, and pick him up working in a car wash or leaving a restaurant at a later date.


Travis

There's never been any doubt about that

I'd say at a minimum, old Harry has to pay whatever fees he didn't pay while he was still grazing stock. All of it.

Good resolution too...but tarred & feathered and stripped of all his ill gotten gains would be better.

Rancher pay the fees and then the Government leave him alone

I'd like to see a special prosecutor brought in to investigate the BLM, and to put their head honchos up on Federal Charges. The boss of BLM is Harry Reid's old policy wonk.

He went to court and lost. He appealed and lost.

He's been on double secret probation ever since. Just one more slip up mister, and yer finished at Faber!

Not saying that either side is completely "in the right" here.

Also not arguing the ownership of said lands.

The root cause of this whole fiasco was a radical environmental group filed litigation based on false science they didn't have to prove and won a lawsuit to close a huge amount of land to grazing. That happened in 1993. BLM reduced Bundy's permit for grazing by 450,000 acres to accommodate the litigation.

So in short what the Bundy Family had been legally doing since 1877 was wiped out with the stroke of a pen for a special interest group that has no further goal than to push ranchers out of business and forever close the lands.

At that point in time, Bundy refused to pay any further money to BLM. Which brings us to where we are today with line drawn in the sand and people taking sides. It also brought us to the point that we all saw milartistic tactics by the government deployed against the American People. It showed the readiness of the government to resort to violence on Americans that never threw a single punch, or pointed any firearm at government agents.

How to fix it?

Maybe there are a couple of solutions.

First, a person has the reasonable expectation that he can continue to legally ranch the land that his family has ranched in total compliance since 1877. Just because the eviction was legal, doesn't make it right and just.

Legislation should be implemented to give those people certain rights based on historical usage on public land.

The same scenario on private land has those protections based on historical usage. The same laws that apply on private land should apply on public lands.

Second, and not less importantly...

Much as "Tort Reform" was legislatively implemented to limit abuses of the legal and court system for lawsuits that were awarding 2 million dollars for spilled coffee, legislation that disallows the misuse of court systems for frivolous lawsuits that only serve to further the goals of special interest groups such as the environmental terrorist groups.

The environmental terrorism within the court systems are not limited to public lands. We ALL pay the price for this type of tactic that is used by those groups against private sector industry such as the oil business and auto manufacturing, as well as mining, electric power generation, commercial fishing, and the firearms industry, and related categories.

We all pay billions of dollars each year because of this type of abuse. And our freedoms and ability to thrive in private sector business or industry is total at risk due to these abuses.

If Bundy had been afforded basic protections that any of us SHOULD be afforded, this never would have even gotten past first base.

Just my opinion. Yours probably will vary.

This seems pretty logical and agree would be a good start. I would also add that if/when legal ownership of said land is found and if Bundy is found to be owning the money for the lease, then a lien should be placed on his property, monies collected at time of cattle/property sales, like is done in real America, Not by some brown shirt invasion of goobermint thugs.

Makes sense to me. Of course I identify with ranchers cause I am one. We don't run on gov. ground but I do a lot of fellas that do. The NFS and BLM are not fun to do business with. Most of their range cons wouldn't know a cow from a turtle. Then there is the wild horse (feral) thing. The Devils Gardens, which I neighbor has around 2000 of the nags (FS management plan calls for 350 to 400). I know for a fact that none of these horses ancestors ever belonged to the Spanish. They have a lot of draft blood in them. They come off the Garden onto private ground, but we can not charge trespass fees to the FS or BLM and can not remove them. The BLM is charged with doing that, although they don't. I am all in favor of the public using public ground, but a lot of people are slobs (don't leave gates as they found them, camp right on a spring, cut fences and don't repair them, leave trash and dump more horses on the range cause they can't afford them. ED

Enforce the laws. The courts have ruled against Bundy. At the very least he should pay all his grazing fees and remove his cattle as ordered. How that can be achieved peacefully, I'm not sure.

I think the American people overwhelming believe that the ballot box and the law should decide what happens, not threats of violence.

Why the laws of both Nevada and U.S. are against Bundy.

3 good posts....making good points.

Yep.

Just like they ought to send in the same sort of law enforcement personnel and tactics that we saw at Bundy Ranch to every home of NY gun owners that are now law breakers by possessing an AR15 or a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

Point guns at them. Taze them. Create 1st Amendment areas outside of towns about 3 miles, and throw women to the ground. Get on the loud speakers an announce you have a Court Order to enforce this law, and that you will shoot if the people get closer.

After all, they broke the law, right?

They haven't been charged nor convicted
Bundy has been, and ignored all the court orders following his conviction

There is no comparison

Let us substitute hunting for ranching for a minute. I have in the past run people off my land while they were hunting and they say "you can't do that, I've hunted here all my life." Well, I can and do. This seems to be about the same thing to me. miles

Training mission, test case, dry run.

According to FoxNews, BLM caused a lot of damage to ranching improvements.

Harry Reid should be impeached as he has failed to represent his constituents.

How about you show us all where Bundy has been CHARGED with an offense?

How about you show me where he has been CONVICTED of anything?

You are right. There is no comparison because the Bundy matter is a civil matter, and falls under the civil statutes of the courts.

And the legal remedies related to CIVIL matters...Not SWAT teams.

Keep walking to the beat of that drum.

So, you would be happy to go to prison if found with a fired hull in you car while traveling through NY or DC.

You've been shown lots of things yet you keep parroting the same misinformation

Look up the court orders for yourself and you'll see he was in violation of the law (hence the reason for the COURT orders)

To suggest otherwise is ridiculous

Show me where he has been charged or convicted of a criminal offense.

Or perhaps don't you understand the difference in civil and criminal?

Your private property rights accorded by the state you are in would let you remedy that.

On the same token, it WOULD allow recreational use to continue on public lands.

Not only want the rancher gone, but everyone else too.

In a perfect world:

Long prison sentences for all of the government goons involved from the least agent, bureaucrat, or contractor, to Reid on the Hill and Obama at 1600. The liquidation of all of their assets with the proceeds used first to offset the costs of their up to $10 million intimidation fiasco at the Bundy Ranch, next to cover the projected cost of their imprisonment, and if any is left create a fund to cover the costs of those in property rights disputes with this huge nasty pot of 'alphabet soup' that the Left has cooked up.

Bundy and the original grazing fee issue is very nearly insignificant at this point and of infinitesimally small import compared to this government's corruption and oppression. He at some point consented to fees to graze 600 head and those fees should resume, but the alleged delinquent fees should be reduced or eliminated to compensate him at least in part for his losses and costs due to this idiotic BLM attempt to purge ranchers and ranching.

Google is your friend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

Type louder.

No question Bundy was fed a s#!t sandwich, legal or not. It's obvious that the system is broken and needs fixed, and a lot of folks have had enough with the government taking our freedoms and rights. This gets fixed one of two ways in my opinion

1. Congress can pass a bill to fix ESA and Equal Access to Justice Act, along with changing BLM mandates to grandfather in ranchers rights.

2. Government can keep pushing, but I have a feeling they won't like the ending to that story.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to where we can find where Bundy was charged and convicted of anything in that link you provided? (Or elsewhere for that matter.)

I rest my case about you not knowing the difference in criminal and civil cases. But I never expected you to prove blatant ignorance at the same time. It was a bonus.

Yeah well that's the risk anybody takes when they lease land. I'm not feeling much compassion.

The liberals are gathering...

I showed what you asked for
I can't make you read or comprehend.
You can't rest a case when you have none, and so far all you've done is talk

Personal responsibility is conservative. Bundy is a welfare queen that got pissed because they took away his free money.

Ok. You win. (Well, not really)

Now run off and go brag to the other Jr. High girls about it.

And the name calling begins
The last resort of those with nothing of substance to add
No need to waste any more time listening

He got upset because they took his livelihood and rights to ranch land they had done so with since 1877.

Yeah, but he never owned the land. Maybe they should have put some forethought into the venture.

He cited Wikipedia? LOL!

You post a wiki link that details the CIVIL case on the thing when you said he was "Charged and Convicted" of something, and suddenly I have nothing of substance? Because I asked you to show me in black and white where he was charged with or convicted of criminal offenses in that article?

Tell you what...

I'll make a retraction and apologize to you if you can simply show me in that link you posted where Bundy was charged with or convicted of something criminal.

tick-tock.

Nobody ever said he owned the land. He did own the permit/allotment to graze cattle on 600,00 acres of it though, and does own the water rights to it, and does own the homestead in conjunction with the above.


No problems for 140 years. I wonder how much more "forethought" a person would need?

And he's cited nothing at all
Does the source change the facts?
Read the court order that says "UNLAWFUL tresspassing"
Then show a source that says tresspassing is a "civil" offense

You are right.

I feel bad that I engaged an unarmed man with a battle of wits.

Exactly the point of the discontent, it takes a lot of acres to graze 500 cows in the desert. Without the grazing rights he can't use his water rights and those go away without reimbursement also.

It's as simple as the government taking 3/4 of your stuff because they pass a law making it legal. It's theft by the government, pure and simple. Bundy's not a constitutional lawyer, just a little guy getting stomped on.

Find out what was really driving the concern about the tortoises and the mitigation and the Chinese solar farm, then let the cows run over Harry Reid.

Why not? He decided he is the poster boy for everything wrong with government. The country's need to rid the country of it's present administration has shown some desperate attempts at creating heroes.

My point is, that as a renter you are vulnerable to the whims of the landowner, period.

Yeah, it sux to be him, but he's not the nearly the martyr that people want to make him out to be. He quit paying 20 years ago, so how much money did he fleece off the taxpayer during that time?

None,...but old man Rothschild came up a bit short.

How much money have the turtle herders fleeced off he taxpayers?

Are you for any law on public land? No holds barred or what?

You are worried about taxpayer dollars?

So, with the fines along with interests and penalties he MAY owe close to a million dollars? (Which he said he will pay to Nevada, and not BLM.)

Here comes BLM and spends over $3 million on a failed roundup.

That was tax dollars, BTW...

But, suppose Bundy had just taken his ball and gone home 20 years ago.

How much money or fees would have been paid by the desert tortoise, or the environmental terrorist group that wanted the land for it exclusively?

Cry me a river about tax dollars being the issue here.

There is no public land.

In fact,...there's no private land either.

The government owns it all.

Quit paying your property taxes and you'll find out.

There is way more to that statement than most people realize.

Yeah, they should charge his sorry ass for that too. He caused it.

Actually I OWN land that isn't taxed.

Alaska is a bit different than many states.

Enjoy it while you can.

Or maybe they should send the bill to folks like the Center for Biological Diversity.

That's where I'll make my last stand.

I ain't going any further north than south east AK. I live about 60 miles from the Canadian border in WA and that's because the "city" kept expanding around and pushing me further north. I'm where I "should be" but I know it won't last forever.

There is no public air. No private air either.

There is no public ocean. No private ocean either.

We possess what we can hold, no more.

Resolution:

Bundy had no title or claim to the land he was grazing. It belonged to the federal government. Bundy owes grazing fees.

The federal government was totally out of line in their method of collection. If circumstances were as they claimed (and they probably were) then they would have had no difficulty going into a Nevada state courtroom and getting a judgment against Bundy, and put liens on his cattle and his ranch. They did not do that. They simply acted without benefit of a court order and proceeded to steal the cattle, which are Bundy's. They also bulldozed Bundy's water supply. A water right is private property.

Judgment in favor of the feds, $1.1 million for grazing fees legitimately owed. Judgment in favor of Bundy for destruction of property, destruction of his water supply, cattle theft, killing of two prize bulls without having any legal right to do so, deliberately inflicting emotional distress, and general thuggishness, $2.2 million.

Watching federal thugs having to back down, priceless.

First off , water rights don�t go away unless you voluntary relinquish or sell them . Past that at least here , there are no continued fees , taxs or what ever you may think must be paid .

As to a fix . Its simple. Demand the US government to keep its word and Honor its agreements until such time as both sides agree to change the agreement.
isn�t that all anyone asks . IE make an agreement , keep it . If you find you don�t like it later then it sucks to be you . Should have considered that before you made an agreement

this is pretty much how it has to go... it's been settled in the courts and all that's left is the enforcement.

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

You need to settle down,amigo. Emotions are no replacement for facts or reality.

Snyper has been spot on as to the facts. And while a good many of you can address what's right or wrong, the reality is the case has already been adjudicated.

Bundy does not get to relitigate his claims. They've already been decided. All that is before him and the court now is the judgment amount and his case against the imminent show cause warrant awaiting him. All he can do now is mitigate.

Bundy is in a horribly fatal position and, instead of emotions based upon nothing other than histrionics, Bundy best get a solid lawyer who can help him work a deal.

The cows are gone, that's a done deal. Right now it's a matter of whether Bundy is going to be broke rather than his family being able to continue to enjoy the fruits of his life long labors.

Bundy is his own worst enemy now. He needs counsel and he needs counsel yesterday. He's mouthing off any chance he has of salvaging his estate. Right now he is arrears of near 640 million dollars. His accepted acknowledgement of owing 300K will be a savings grace only if he shuts his frikken mouth.

No charge, boys.

Do you think BLM's response was appropriate and proportional?

Perhaps you can show where he was charged and convicted of criminal charges?

Everyone knows that federal courts ruled against him in the civil case. Everyone knows that he said GFY.

But, if everyone is so spot on about criminal charges and convictions that bear his name, perhaps they can show us? Can you Issac?

A civil court order finding the cattle in trespass is a different matter than criminal charges and convictions.

Although I agree that he needs to lawyer up, because it's comin'. Just hasn't happened yet. But, in the same breath, the govt. did not seek all the relief through civil means that they could have either.

They came in like storm troopers and incurred litigious damages on the man and his private property that THEY need to be held responsible for as well.

And spent 10X the alleged outstanding grazing fees to do so.

Like Bob said, He's had his day in court and right or wrong, it's been decided.

Hopefully he can work out a deal, but I don't put much stock in that happening.

The main reason I don't see a deal is that the goobermint is afraid it would set a dangerous precedent and every rancher or concern that leases federally controlled property may pull a "Bundy".

As far as the response, it was certainly heavy handed, but when you've ignored the goobermint and Federal court orders for 20 years, don't act all surprised when they show up en masse.

For the feral govt to go fahq themselves.

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

I've answered that question 5 times already, Michael. I'm not going backwards on this fiasco any longer.

I missed it, sorry.

I can't read everydamnthing.

But, if everyone is so spot on about criminal charges and convictions that bear his name, perhaps they can show us? Can you Issac?
=====

Your emotions cause you to focus on the irrelevant and semantics in your gallant effort to escape the reality.

Arguing over whether trespass is criminal or civil is irrelevant forum blather and it has nothing to do with the actual reality now awaiting Bundy.

If everything I told you holds true, are you going to take the position that you were right because it was a civil matter rather than a criminal matter?

The people that really care about Bundy should be putting their resources together to find him a kick ass lawyer that could negotiate a deal that leaves Bundy's pride intact and some solid dough in the bank.

I have compassion and respect for the man but it wanes a bit each and every time he opens his mouth.

Did some practical joker sneak some Icy Hot onto his nuts?

This is probably pretty close.

Done now. Bundy is on his land as long as he wants to be or lives. heheheh

I wish you were right. Not with this current administration though, I'm afraid.

Reid isn't going to let it end, you can bank on that.

Give Janet a call...

No Charge? You tell me to settle down? Emotions are no replacement for facts or reality?

Lets talk about who gets emotional and replaces facts for reality for a few minutes, Bob.

















Really, that's all I wanted to spend time on, but it illustrates that you are a hypocrite well enough.

You pretty much define yourself as a condescending pr-ick every day as well, by what and how you post.

How about that 2x4 education you offered me. Let me give you a clue, buckaroo... You'd need it.

lmao

Ouchy!

Hypocrisy? You histrionic kids were supporting folks dying over a clear,court adjudicated lawbreaker. Of course, you did this from your leather arm chair.

But, you are right. I shouldn't have elevated my tone in a effort to change the minds of those who weren't thinking clearly and whom were advocating anarchism at the expense of other family's children, rather than their own.

I was out of line and I admit it. Why should I care if folks died because they were too ignorant to know what they were actually dying for.

If Bundy is your Hill, you truly need to learn to count to 10 while trying to learn the related facts the law.

You boys threw 1000 darts and maybe hit one balloon.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...e_Truth_About_the_Bundy_s_vs#Post8784740

You still are. Quit digging.

My pet seal appears to be looking for some attention after being ignored for much of the night.

Quit your yapping and I'll toss you a herring or two a bit later.

PS...PM pinkeye and maybe you two can get in some powerful attaboys and plus ones over the next hour or two before juice time.

Your ignorance is nothing new and influences my posts only slightly. Admit you were wrong and then go right back to the arrogant, over-the-top and most of all unintelligent posting you are known for. It would be humorous were it not strange and pathetic.

Maybe were are not all in favor of everything Bundy did, or may do. I know I'm not. But, I'm less in favor of what the government has done in the case. But, aside from Bundy, I see people I know get treated just like this by the BLM and USFS. Lots of them. I know these people and rub shoulders with them daily.

Are there better "causes" than to pick this one? Of course there are. The only thing is, that Bundy is the one that stood up and fought. And there are so many people that the government is stepping on these days that this will become more and more the case... The more you step on folks, the greater the chances are that you will step on that is willing to fight back.

You mention people dying. No, they haven't yet. And I hope they don't. Nobody wants that.

But a couple of things have been brought to light about this whole thing.... First is the willingness of the enforcement end of things (government) to kill over it if ordered to.

Second is the willingness of folks to die for it if need be.

We are lucky indeed that we CAN sit back in an armchair and watch all this unfold. Because it is a lesson in just HOW government will actually deal with situations like this and what the ultimate outcome will be. Everyone is getting a huge lesson in what to do, and what NOT to do next time.

Hang in there,son. I'm confident you'll touch down somewhere.

In the meanwhile, quit stalking me. It's getting a bit creepy, especially when you don't have your dumb and dumber back-up.

How about,for peace sakes, I send you an autographed picture instead? And some herring?.

Why are the feds so concerned about some rancher's cows pissing on some turtles, when there's 2 states breaking federal law with their "legalized " marijuana? Anyone heard anything about swat teams surrounding the weed shops in Colorado /Washington?

Couple of insightful articles:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375928/bundys-lessons-travis-kavulla

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...powerlessness-rural-america-david-french

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/why-you-should-be-sympathetic-toward-cliven-bundy.php

'Cause Democrats are in charge...duh.

Damn!! Ain't that the truth!

Curious about that part of it. I've seen statements by the governor and the county officials saying they won't allow the cattle to leave the area if seized by the Feds, and it seems they are in charge of that. I know an eastern lawyer probably doesn't know anything about livestock movement restrictions in a ranching state, but curious to know how a federal court is going to view federal enforcement action that violates state law.

I know the Feds don't care about state law...

they dont just not care about state law but also fed law as Its not just state law but federal law that forbids the transporting of livestock across state lines without proof of health certificates and identification . This is also folded in with brand inspection requirements for both state and federal laws . Look up Title 9 of the federal code. The fed also allows states to enact more stringent laws under that same code . then you have the whole AWA act which requires all manor of conditions for transpertation livestock .
So as to protect us all from the spread of disease. So was not only the BLM going to disregard all that but even if they moved the cattle to a sale yard within the state ,THEY would have to have provided the documentation that their animals complied with inoculations . Since they had none for their herd . IE it wasn�t Bundy�s herd any longer , then either the tax payer would have had to pay for all the tests OR they would have had to take Bundy back to court and forced the release of his records for the herd .
Also Im just guessing here but since the herd would also have been sold in Navada the fed would then have to have complied with state livestock sale requirements.
If they killed them , that�s also covered under title 9 . So no mater how you cut it , they would have had to completely disregard some chapter of the federal law as well as state law. See that�s one of the real problems here . Its not a do as I say case but more of a do as I say , not as I do case .

Its also should be noted that while some think the American revolution was a case of the enter country supporting revolt , its was not . Only a small segment of the population were calling for separation / standing up against the laws and treatment of the crown .

So �If one were to go back and be able to apply the mass media of today , to the situation back then , we would most likely see , the very same types of discussion as we see here . IE some folks adamantly supporting one side others not and still others on the fence .
There were even those who were saying that it wasn�t the time but agreeing something needed to be done .
In order IMO for most folks in the east to really get a grasp on whats got folks in the west all fired up about this case and many others , you would have to go back alittle over 100 years to a time when parts of the east were being dealt with by the fed in much the same manor . That ended up in the US civil war . We forget that the war wasn�t just about slavery but the attempt of the fed to enforce its rules and regulations .

As such this is just the tip of the iceberg. it�s a much , Much bigger issue then just Bundy and his ranch

What I've read is the contractor was to gather the cattle and take them to a sale yard in Utah. Which is where the governor stepped up and said, "No". Apparently the Utah governor also stepped up and said, "No".

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57792018-90/utah-cattle-county-blm.html.csp

I'm not sure if Mr. Bundy knows it, but I have some information for him. On the internet he can choose to buy a ranch, anywhere from North Dakota to Texas, and it will all be legally his. The man does not seem to know the meaning of private/public property. I hope someday I am hunting on BLM land where he s running his cattle, free of charge. I may shoot one of his steers take it home and eat it....................after all.....................My kin have been eating beef in the USA since 1870, and we have a right to eat beef.

we descendents of the scotti have not weighed in yet, but we're working on an appropriate response that will fit the conditions at hand.

They don't need to transport the cattle out of the state.
They only want them off the Federal land.
They could sell then within the state, or work out an agreement for Bundy to keep them on his land if he pays what he owes

in a pinch, the meat could be processed and donated to the homeless shelters, not sure of the ethics of that action though.

the people in the big cities such as Reno and Las Vegas are probably hungry for some good beef at a low price.

we all want justice to be done. the immediate problem is how best to define an appropriate "justice." one thing for sure, as much as I hate to agree with the ambulance chasers who frequent this board, I'd be lawyering up, heavy at this point in time. I mean, it's all negotiable, isn't it?

Or, more simply, take their case to a Nevada court, get a judgment, and place liens against his real estate, cattle, or bank accounts. Then, send the local sheriff's deputies out to seize items until the judgment is satisfied.

It's a subtle point, but the Constitution allows the federal government the ability to own land in the states, but the states have sovereignty over it. The federal government is just another landowner.

If a landowner has a dispute with a renter, he is not allowed to simply start seizing assets as the federal government did. The landowner has to follow the process.

again , they cannot sell them in state without breaking federal laws as they have no records for the animals themselves.
About the only thing they have is � the judge said we could remove the trespassing cattle �
Ok so fine ,who�s cattle are they ? Are they all Bundys?
Do you know ? Does the sale yard know ? The answer to that is NO !
that�s why we have laws so that the answer to that is YES.
Now another problem . Who do you think is going to buy these cattle ???

Sale yards were not accepting them , why because they have seen this before . So now what , would the fed set up their own impromptu sale yard ???
Ok so then would the permits , inspections and all other requirements then be waved , I other words the laws over looked .
But lets say they were , who is going to buy them , another rancher ?
Well I wouldn�t want to be that guy .
Feed lot ? Can you say end of that buissness ..
that�s why they wanted to take them to Utah as no where in Nevada was willing to take them . Ahhh but in order to do so , they had to break federal laws as well as state laws and that�s why the Utah governor said Nope.
so now that brings up the question of this
Feds accused of leaving trail of wreckage after Nevada ranch standoff
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...il-wreckage-after-nevada-ranch-standoff/


so for those who have been standing on this court order idea . can someone posted where the court gave the BLM and permission to do anything other then remove the cattle ?
Who authorized them to shoot the bulls . One of which was in a corral.
Another which is being reported to have been shot 5 times .
Seriously 5 times . Now what fringing idiot has to shoot a range bull 5 time to kill it ?
Then on top of all that , they left them out there to rot.
Where is the outcry from the animal rights groups about that ?
However I guarantee you if there was a photo of one single squashed tortes that one photo would be shown over and over and over again in the media as a justification for this

After due process, and court orders supporting such sale of seizures. And also after all the Nevada brand inspection laws and transport and sale laws have been met. You can't just go and break state laws because you are the federales. Lot's of folks the that federal laws trump state and local laws. Not so. Haven't the federales broken enough laws and violated the Constitution enough for one event?



Again, only after the proper laws and due process is followed. Plus, with this suggestion, the slaughtered cattle would have to be processed in a USDA inspected facility and passed for consumption by the public.



It's a good thing you will be armed then... Because you would need to be if I caught you shooting my cattle, or anyone I know that raises cattle. Why not let the courts enforce the civil judgments?

Or just let Bundy sit in jail until he complies with the court order.

He owes over 640 million as it is.

He can't win and he ain't no John Wayne.

He best get a solid lawyer to help him mitigate his impending nightmare and one who has no problem with super gluing his mouth shut.

What if..._______________?

or, what if...___________?

What if the federal agencies follow proper protocol and show some respect to citizens and their constitutional rights, and the laws within the state?

What if a person actually had a clue before posting? There are lots of BLM experts now that never sat foot on BLM. And lots of livestock ranchers that never got any closer to a cow than the highway right of way.

Where did that come from, Bob?

Hell you could by Nevada and give them Las Vegas as change for that.

I thought it was 1.35 million, but that was just the unpaid grazing fees/fines...

The 640 comes from a $200 per day fine on trespass cattle.

Rotsa Ruck Collecting that...

Now it's 1.35 million. Hell, lets just let the federales pick a number. I'm sure they will get the same amount, no matter what their number of the day is.

yes, Bundy has shown very clearly how he handles his debts

Well, he showed how he handles environmental terrorists and their crack eviction team, at any rate.

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

I don't have the order right in front of me but I believe it's from the Fed Ct's 1999 Order stating the fine would be 200 bucks, per head of cattle,after "X" amount of time (I think 45 days).

Don't hold me to it but I read it inside two days ago so my memory may still be somewhat intact.

Yeah, I don't think their final tabulation reflects that though. They COULD impose an unreasonable fine on him, but it'd get tossed based on his ability to pay in the next 10 lifetimes though.

======

Easy for you to say,man, it's not your money.

He has a family including 14 children and who knows how many grandkids.

If I were in Bundy's shoes, I certainly hope I wouldn't be so selfish as to ignore my family and their potential need for my estate because I thought I didn't have to obey a Federal Ct judge.

WTF it's what democrats like; folks on the government tit.

http://www.conservativeinfidel.com/...hinese-govt-get-rid-right-wing-ranchers/

Hell man, his estate was ruined the day they served the order on him cutting his permit from 600 head to 150 head. From that point on, he had nothing to lose. Those kind of guys are kinda dangerous.... Take everything away from them they worked for all their life with a stroke of a pen, and sometimes you get what's left over.

The man's family seems to be backing him just fine too.

The problem really is not that Bundy was wrong (at least legally), but the disproportionately excessive response from the BLM.

When did BLM get a SWAT team, anyway?

Does *every* fed agency have their own police force?

You only have power over people as long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power - he's FREE again.
~ Alexander Solzhenitsyn

It's time to reread Solzhenitsyn, this time as survival manuals.

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.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/congressman-pens-letter-obama-blasting-lawless-blm/

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

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.

Bob, the point is that although you are an attorney, you must consider that fact that there may be areas outside your legal expertise, and furthermore, you must consider the possibility that others may actually have experience in such matters. If not with the professional law firms, then at least with feet on the ground, combined with dealing with this very type situation on varying levels.

Some of us may actually hold a small resemblance to being educated too.

And his 160 acres without the permit is worth about what the back bedroom in your house is worth without the rest of it thrown in.

Oh no Isaac seem to know all about the law. If you don't agree with him you are an Idiot. Just ask him. Has Bundy done everything correctly probably not. But I am pretty sure the Feds aren't going to make a move this big unless they have something to hold over someones head. Illegal guns "Ruby Ridge" Child endangerment "Waco".
That is why they make so many rules and make them so hard to figure out. That way they always have something to hold against you. They aren't going to pick on a guys that has a clean record and never done anything wrong.

Still doesn't mean the feds are right.

Excuse me. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you think you've made some point I haven't refuted?

I'm not aware of even one. I'll be happy to address any point you've made whereby you actually think you've proved me wrong about something but, you'll actually have to prove it rather than believe it because you posted it.

Experimental Stewardship Program

Cmon, the welfare bitch owes over $1 million and got called on it. This ain't rocket surgery.

You can refute them all day long. It doesn't make you right though.

But seriously, I have had about as much of this discussion as I want for awhile. I just pop in from time to time and clear up things like water rights and such as I see they may need a bit of clarification.

Have a good evening.

but all he had to do is move his cows. problem is, he can't get pasture this cheap, so he'd have to pay fair market value, and that seems to be a huge problem to him. seems a half million acres of cheap grazing is a hard teat to get weaned from.

OK, I hear you.

You didn't clarify anything as to water rights on the allotment,though.

Until you prove me wrong as to things I've stated, it actually does make me right.

if you paying 1.25 a Um per month ya think ????
alfalfa silage is over 200 a ton corn silage less . On top of that add in the federal requirements for a feed lot vs. ranch and you will see real quick why so many of ranchers chose to graze vs. feed

Out of curiosity, what are the acreage requirements per head in MT. vs NV?

Long live Clintons desert turtles and harry reids chinese solar deal.

It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and everywhere, to assume...that every citizen is a criminal. Their one apparent purpose, pursued with a relentless and furious diligence, is to convert the assumption into a fact. They hunt endlessly for proofs, and, when proofs are lacking, for mere suspicions. The moment they become aware of a definite citizen, John Doe, seeking what is his right under the law, they begin searching feverishly for an excuse for withholding it from him.
~ H. L. Mencken

Well, what I understand of his situation is that he holds 3 of those water rights on springs, and the remainder on wells throughout the 600,00 acres, with probably one being at his house.

I'm not going to map out the other 10 wells for you because there's no money in it for me. I simply will refer to your better judgment with whether you think he had all 11 water rights on his 160 acres and still managed to have cattle on 600,000 acres of desert lands without them dying of thirst, or by starvation by overgrazing 160 acres with 11 wells or springs.

As an attorney, you also know that I don't have to prove anything to you. The people that read these threads can judge for themselves. At least I'm getting not only my mindset out there, but the mindset of ranchers all over the west that have faced the same issues repeatedly with the BLM and USFS.

Well, only when you stop paying the government.

That's you, me, or anybody that works for a living.

If you have NEVER paid the government, you make it up to them by voting Democrat.

Not a cattle man, but I'm having a little trouble understanding the wisdom of "working for all their life" on land you don't own, never will own and for which you stopped paying lease fees 20 years ago.

not that simple Iron bender as it depends on the assessment of the land itself . as such a districting MT may actually have a greater or lesser requirement then one in NV ,ID or where have you .
Just the same as one district in MT may have more or less then another .

I agree for the most part. Many is time when I asked myself why people sink a lifetime of hard labor into a ranch that is a permit to graze cattle, and could be taken away in the bat of an eye by BLM or Forest Service to make a bunch of welfare hippies happy, and not even have the consideration of being paid for your investment.

I have seen families that struggled with staying in ranching even in the best of years have to load up two generations of folks into the pickups and cattle trailers and leave the ranch their families homesteaded over 100 years ago, and leave because they were forced to much the same way Bundy was. With absolutely no retirement or 401k, or even enough money for a down payment on a small house. With no other job skills that would even make them marketable in the job market, because all they knew was how to ranch. How will the kids go to college? Will their wives have to try and get a job too? What's gonna happen to that mare you gave your daughter when she was 7 years old now? What happens to that old, one horned cow that you pulled out the mud last year?

What will happen to America when nobody is out there raising food for those in the cities? Will the government feed them? With what? Imported beef? Beef imported from another country that recognizes the need to feed a nation?

Many times this happens. I KNOW people it has happened to.

One day, back in 1993, the BLM showed up at Bundy's house and told him they were taking his ability to make a living ranching away from him because a radical environmental group wanted his land for the desert tortoise. They had cut his permit from 600 head to 150 head. He couldn't live on that, and faced the situation you see above, with loading his family and leaving with nothing.... Even though he had always paid his fees.

It was THEN that he told then they could GFY.

He didn't just wake up one day and decide he would put more in his pocket by not paying paltry grazing fees. But, that is the way it worked out. He fought them in court the past 20 years to no avail because if you know anything at all about how the BLM and USFS is structured legally, you CAN'T win. It isn't in their playbook. ALL the rules and all the laws and all the courts are "by the government FOR the government". So his winning isn't even an option on the table. But, by God, he didn't walk away... He made them work for what they took from him.

From ranching both private land and public land, I tend to agree with you. Many ranchers even on private land have lost the ranch because there just isn't any money in it anymore. Too much government regulation, and that same government allows so much imported beef into our country the markets are all over the place at best. Drought and rising cost of feed due to ethanol production taking up the lion's share of the corn that used to be affordable for feeding livestock...

Why would anyone in their right mind try and ranch for a living? Especially where the government can give you the boot without even a "Thank You"?

You got me... I don't have the answer for that myself.

... And then comes the BLM jackbooted thugs to create 1st Amendment Zones, point guns at his loved ones, throw his sister to the ground as she continued the battle with cancer, tazed his son, even though he had never even doubled up a fist.

They ran his cattle to death with helicopters. Shot his bulls. And left newborn calves out in the desert to die because there mothers had been rounded up, and they were left behind.

I can't imagine ANY man mad enough to fight after that.

Can you?

SITREP: BUNDY RANCH

PLEASE SHARE WIDELY. THIS IS FOR THE FECKLESS DUMBASSES WHO ARE DEFENDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

"There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not.

What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher's grazing permit it says the following: "You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due." The "mandatory" terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this "contract" agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment.

In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher's permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%.

In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away.

And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand.

Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are "suspended," but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of "suspended" AUMs that will probably never be returned.

And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy singlehandedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero." ~ Kandy Sealy

I cannot believe the utter lack of comprehension of some of the people on this subject.

The Feds are the greater of the two evils here.

There will never be a case of government abuse that the feds will not have the legal upperhand. Even if they have to change the laws to get the upperhand. As it was in this case.

So if the legality of the person or business that the Feds put in the crosshairs is what decides who is right or wrong then the Feds are always going to be in the right. According to the big thinkers on this sight.

So in that case nothing is worth fighting for right or wrong doesnt matter.

Being sold down the river by ourselves. I guess we got it coming.

And the Bundys had these rights for a long time before the BLM was ever thought of.

Yep.

If you don't believe me, just ask a Native American.

Some folks think that right and wrong is the same thing as legal and illegal.You can be be hell bent wrong and be absolutely legal.

That's it in a nutshell.