Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
guess you didn't really know the answer cause you had to let others answer.
Don't you get after Hopalong for these kind of trolling antics? :roll:
Bundy Ranch
- Thread starter per
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
guess you didn't really know the answer cause you had to let others answer.
Don't you get after Hopalong for these kind of trolling antics? :roll:
SMN Herf
Well-known member
Well we can argue over jurisdiction and all but the bottom line is there is no reason for the Feds to come in with helicopters, SWAT teams, snipers and backhoes in order to remove these cattle. They could have went in with a few people and gathered these cattle up over a period of a few months on horseback and accomplished their court order. Instead they have to make this big grandios power play showing how mighty they are.
So why would they feel the need to use overwhelming force in this situation. I say it is probably sending a message to anyone else resisting and also to use it for political leverage back on the coasts to show the city folks how we are all just a bunch of unsophisticated, right wing, anti govt, anti environment, tea party types that must be crushed by any means. The progressive bloggers will eat this up and it will give them justification and proof of their mission and that is an all powerfull federal govt. It fits their narrative for the next round of elections and it is fodder to push their agenda.
I say that we need to play their game too. The rest of us need to use this a tool to educate those who are wiling to listen about property rights, and grazing rights and how the federal govt agencies have aligned with environmental groups and are using the endangered species act to force people off the land and deprive them of their rights through fraud, extortion, mail fraud and racketeering. I am not saying they have in this case but there is a history of it out there and it needs to get more publicity.
One such case was proven recently.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15602-federal-judge-rules-for-property-rights-smacks-down-abusive-feds
An excerpt from the article: "Judge Jones said he found that "the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the '70s and '80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that's a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don't … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct."
In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort "to kill the business of Mr. Hage"
So why would they feel the need to use overwhelming force in this situation. I say it is probably sending a message to anyone else resisting and also to use it for political leverage back on the coasts to show the city folks how we are all just a bunch of unsophisticated, right wing, anti govt, anti environment, tea party types that must be crushed by any means. The progressive bloggers will eat this up and it will give them justification and proof of their mission and that is an all powerfull federal govt. It fits their narrative for the next round of elections and it is fodder to push their agenda.
I say that we need to play their game too. The rest of us need to use this a tool to educate those who are wiling to listen about property rights, and grazing rights and how the federal govt agencies have aligned with environmental groups and are using the endangered species act to force people off the land and deprive them of their rights through fraud, extortion, mail fraud and racketeering. I am not saying they have in this case but there is a history of it out there and it needs to get more publicity.
One such case was proven recently.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15602-federal-judge-rules-for-property-rights-smacks-down-abusive-feds
An excerpt from the article: "Judge Jones said he found that "the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the '70s and '80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that's a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don't … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct."
In fact, Judge Jones accused the federal bureaucrats of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them as well of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an effort "to kill the business of Mr. Hage"
kolanuraven
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Messages
- 10,917
- Reaction score
- 11
Big Muddy rancher said:
The answer seemed so obvious and I made the mistake thinking that most people knew that information..... because" In the West, we understand these things". That is a GREAT line, thanks FH, I gotta write that one down!!
Hopalong is too chicken shite to follow his own shadow, but you are right...he is truly a troll!!!
:wink:
Faster horses
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 30,240
- Reaction score
- 1,423
kolanuraven said:
I'm so glad that I made your day! I'm sure you will find future opportunities
to wisely remind me of what I said.
In fact, I expect it. I'm not afraid to admit I was wrong. We do that in the west, ya know.
I stand corrected. Long ago, when we were around forest service and forest rangers, they were not law enforcement. The Game Wardens were and they took care of enforcing the law. My mistake. I need to keep up. I did check it before I posted it, but the information I got was incorrect. There, you can make an issue out of that, too, sweetie.
In the meantime, lets get back to the subject at hand. I talked to
a person who is the grass manager on a forest permit. What he said that
he deemed very important, is the forest service is PUBLIC LAND. The permittees do not own the land, the public does. The public, of course with environmental activists pointing it out, were concerned about the tortoise.
Leanin' H is right, there is more sympathy to wildlife species than there is toward ranchers or cattle, sad to say.
The man I spoke with said this matter has gone to court and Mr. Bundy was to remove his cattle. He didn't so they are in the process of a roundup. He didn't know about running the cattle to death with helicoptors.
I'm not saying who is right or wrong; this was just the take on it from a government employee. I think the whole thing is more than unfortunate and of course, I tend to side with the rancher.
per
Well-known member
The plot is not as transparent as one might think.
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/
loomixguy
Well-known member
per said:
My God.
It's about time some bastards got hung....this is wrong on so many levels, and my guess is that OT's colleague in the Clark county Sheriff's Office done got his payola and is content to let it happen.
leanin' H
Well-known member
Thought I would share our State Cattlemen's Association's statement on this situation. There are many unanswered questions but I have very little doubt that the way the BLM is handling this wrong. Their response with what amounts to riot police is way out of line. Add in the political angles and all the emotions from the rancher and his supporters and you have the perfect storm. I hope none of you are naïve enough to think the endangered species act is stopped by the fence line around your private land. When radical environmental groups can basically write the agenda for the BLM and Forest Service, using the ESA as a weapon, of course public land users will keep suffering. (Logging, mining, off-roading and ranching) While Mr. Bundy isn't perfect, this entire fiasco was started by the over-reach of the federal government backed and supported by radical anti-ranching groups in the federal agencies pockets! Turtles and wolves and grizzlies and mustangs are all merely chess pieces in a game that has a goal of ending public land ranching. When they accomplish that goal, private land will be next. Unless you play by the rules as dictated by the money pulling the strings!
The Utah Cattlemen's Association (UCA) recognizes that the issues surrounding cattle removal in Clark County, Nevada are complex and have been contentious for many years and involves several issues.
1. The root of the current controversy goes back to the action taken by the federal land management agencies when they used the Endangered Species Act as a reason to reduce grazing and remove cattle from the grazing allotment, giving land management preference to the tortoise over the permitted grazing use. The Utah Cattlemen's Association opposes the Endangered Species Act as it is now written and enforced and supports the action in the US Congress to amend the Act.
2. The Utah Cattlemen's Association recognizes county ordinances, state laws, and federal laws. We support the concept that the government closest to the people is a government that is heard and ran by the people. We oppose the federal government from taking any action of usurpation of any state or county sovereign rights within the local government boundaries.
3. The Utah Cattlemen's Association supports the mandate in the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) that requires the Secretary of Interior to coordinate all law enforcement through local sheriff departments.
4. The Utah Cattlemen's Association opposes both voluntary relinquishment and conservation retirement of grazing allotments or AUM's. UCA encourages county and state governments, as well as the BLM, to keep grazing allotments and animal grazing AUM's in beneficial use by bona fide livestock operators as outlined in the Taylor Grazing Act.
5. The Utah Cattlemen's Association supports the full implementation of the Transfer of Public Lands Act in the State of Utah in order to protect the state's cultural and economic vitality. The transfer of management will preserve the important historical and cultural contributions that our public lands provide to the state of Utah, the nation, and the world.
6. The Utah Cattlemen's Association is opposed to the removal or reduction of livestock from rangelands as an option or tool to mitigate impacts of other uses. We support the concept of multiple use of public land and request that one use of the lands not be given preference over other permitted uses.
7. The Utah Cattlemen's Association recognizes Utah law that says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without the due process of law. We support responsible law enforcement which protects the individual citizen and private property rights, under the Constitution.
8. The Utah Cattlemen's Association recognizes the private property rights of ownership of cattle. We require that any agency involved in this process, recognize and respect those private property rights.
9. The Utah Cattlemen's Association has met with and requested to state government and federal agencies that the cattle in question not be transported across state lines. In the event that the cattle are transported, we demand that all legal requirements for transportation, brand inspection, and animal health and welfare be observed. The task of ensuring compliance falls under the responsibilities of the states involved and the requirements must be met by the BLM.
10. The Utah Cattlemen's Association recognizes that this issue has generated a great amount of emotion and discussion on other issues such as the over-population of wild horses and burros on public as well as private lands. We support the action taken by several county commissions in Utah to address the wild horse issue, and demand that the BLM work with the local county commissioners to address the federal government's obligation to manage the wild horses and burros at the levels established in the management plans.
11. The Utah Cattlemen's Association has met, and continues to meet with the BLM, the State of Utah, Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, Utah Attorney General's Office, the Utah Congressional Delegation and any other agency or avenue that we can to resolve these conflicts.
The Utah Cattlemen's Association is a membership organization that works to represent our association members' issues in the legislative and regulatory arena, provide educational information and assist with industry networking opportunities.
The Utah Cattlemen's Association (UCA) recognizes that the issues surrounding cattle removal in Clark County, Nevada are complex and have been contentious for many years and involves several issues.
1. The root of the current controversy goes back to the action taken by the federal land management agencies when they used the Endangered Species Act as a reason to reduce grazing and remove cattle from the grazing allotment, giving land management preference to the tortoise over the permitted grazing use. The Utah Cattlemen's Association opposes the Endangered Species Act as it is now written and enforced and supports the action in the US Congress to amend the Act.
2. The Utah Cattlemen's Association recognizes county ordinances, state laws, and federal laws. We support the concept that the government closest to the people is a government that is heard and ran by the people. We oppose the federal government from taking any action of usurpation of any state or county sovereign rights within the local government boundaries.
3. The Utah Cattlemen's Association supports the mandate in the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) that requires the Secretary of Interior to coordinate all law enforcement through local sheriff departments.
4. The Utah Cattlemen's Association opposes both voluntary relinquishment and conservation retirement of grazing allotments or AUM's. UCA encourages county and state governments, as well as the BLM, to keep grazing allotments and animal grazing AUM's in beneficial use by bona fide livestock operators as outlined in the Taylor Grazing Act.
5. The Utah Cattlemen's Association supports the full implementation of the Transfer of Public Lands Act in the State of Utah in order to protect the state's cultural and economic vitality. The transfer of management will preserve the important historical and cultural contributions that our public lands provide to the state of Utah, the nation, and the world.
6. The Utah Cattlemen's Association is opposed to the removal or reduction of livestock from rangelands as an option or tool to mitigate impacts of other uses. We support the concept of multiple use of public land and request that one use of the lands not be given preference over other permitted uses.
7. The Utah Cattlemen's Association recognizes Utah law that says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without the due process of law. We support responsible law enforcement which protects the individual citizen and private property rights, under the Constitution.
8. The Utah Cattlemen's Association recognizes the private property rights of ownership of cattle. We require that any agency involved in this process, recognize and respect those private property rights.
9. The Utah Cattlemen's Association has met with and requested to state government and federal agencies that the cattle in question not be transported across state lines. In the event that the cattle are transported, we demand that all legal requirements for transportation, brand inspection, and animal health and welfare be observed. The task of ensuring compliance falls under the responsibilities of the states involved and the requirements must be met by the BLM.
10. The Utah Cattlemen's Association recognizes that this issue has generated a great amount of emotion and discussion on other issues such as the over-population of wild horses and burros on public as well as private lands. We support the action taken by several county commissions in Utah to address the wild horse issue, and demand that the BLM work with the local county commissioners to address the federal government's obligation to manage the wild horses and burros at the levels established in the management plans.
11. The Utah Cattlemen's Association has met, and continues to meet with the BLM, the State of Utah, Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, Utah Attorney General's Office, the Utah Congressional Delegation and any other agency or avenue that we can to resolve these conflicts.
The Utah Cattlemen's Association is a membership organization that works to represent our association members' issues in the legislative and regulatory arena, provide educational information and assist with industry networking opportunities.
loomixguy
Well-known member
The jack booted thugs doing this, and their leaders, are making the Mafia look like a bunch of Sunday School teachers.
Faster horses
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 30,240
- Reaction score
- 1,423
I'm posting that on my facebook page.
Circle the wagons, folks!
http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/04/11/militiamen-make-their-presence-felt-in-protest-of-blm-livestock-grab/?subscriber=1
Circle the wagons, folks!
http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/04/11/militiamen-make-their-presence-felt-in-protest-of-blm-livestock-grab/?subscriber=1
A
Anonymous
Guest
I did a little more digging and found that the first BLM rangers were hired in 1976- apparently after passage of the The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to contract with local law enforcement or hire their own law enforcement...The Act was signed by the President Ford on October 21, 1976, and became Public Law 94-579, 90 Stat. 2743. While the first Rangers were hired for California in 1976 it appears they did not receive full federal law enforcement authority until 1978...
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/history/sidebars/law_enforcement.html
Interesting- the choice is given to the Interior Secretary to contract with local law enforcement agencies or hire their own... Like any good bureaucrat given a choice to build upon their empire - guess what they did :???:
And I find it interesting- what some are calling a mandate in the FLPMA actually says "The Secretary is authorized to"... Sounds like it was left open to the discretion of the Secretary if he works with local regulatory and law enforcement officials and definitely doesn't say he has to as being put out by some folks and groups....
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/history/sidebars/law_enforcement.html
Interesting- the choice is given to the Interior Secretary to contract with local law enforcement agencies or hire their own... Like any good bureaucrat given a choice to build upon their empire - guess what they did :???:
And I find it interesting- what some are calling a mandate in the FLPMA actually says "The Secretary is authorized to"... Sounds like it was left open to the discretion of the Secretary if he works with local regulatory and law enforcement officials and definitely doesn't say he has to as being put out by some folks and groups....
Cedarcreek
Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I wonder if there previous law that requires them to coordinate with local law? Would take a lot more digging into the law to find out.
hypocritexposer
Well-known member
Moapa Valley Town Board Meeting regarding Cliven Bundy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0_SXrs4SkQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0_SXrs4SkQ
hypocritexposer
Well-known member
A
Anonymous
Guest
Cedarcreek said:
Well if there is we sure didn't find them... Back in the 90's when some were losing their grazing rights to the CMR expansion- about every legal beagle in the state looked into it and could find nothing... We had some of the top private and state attorneys and Judges researching- and they couldn't find anything... The rumor mill had all kinds of "urban legends" floating around- but no one was ever able to come up with anything spelled out in black and white.... This was also during a time when some authorities in the State were upset about the US Marshals dumping relocated "witness protection" subjects in their counties without anyone knowing about it....
This brought on the push to pass a State Law requiring that Federal authorities must coordinate or notify the Sheriff before any action within their county- and that is when we were told it would be tossed out the first time as unconstitutional the minute it was enacted under the Supremacy Clause...
The last time they tried to run this thru the legislature was in 2011 (Senate Bill 114) - but got nowhere mainly again because its unconstitutional...
Broke Cowboy
Well-known member
So when this ADMINISTRATIVE branch of government brings in MWRAPS, and heavy weapons - then what?
Because I am betting they are either on the way or there now.
People of the US of A have let the feds become their masters in more ways than one.
I am sure we are not far behind
bc
Because I am betting they are either on the way or there now.
People of the US of A have let the feds become their masters in more ways than one.
I am sure we are not far behind
bc
REAL story is how one old rancher demonstrates more intestinal fortitude than ALL elected representatives put together. One old rancher does more to stand up to government aggression than all the lawyers ever born.
Go Cliven
Go Cliven
Jigger Boss
Well-known member
found this online...
Written By Kena Lytle Gloeckner
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.
Written By Kena Lytle Gloeckner
Written By Kena Lytle Gloeckner
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.
Written By Kena Lytle Gloeckner
