Skip to comments.Last Man Standing Rancher: armed feds are surrounding my farm
Posted on 04/08/2014 6:00:09 PM PDT by Nachum
A two-decades-old battle between a Nevada rancher and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has resulted in officials armed with machine guns surrounding the ranch and forcibly removing the owners cattle, according to the ranchers family.
Cliven Bundy, the last rancher in Clark County, Nev., has been fighting a one-man range war since 1993, when he decided to take a stand against the agency, refusing to pay fees for the right to graze on a ranch run by his family for centuries.
After years of court battles, the BLM secured a federal court order to have Bundys trespass cattle forcibly removed with heavy artillery, the family said.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
Water rights, agenda 21. Someone is stealing his piece of the industry and chain of supply.
America used to fight monopolies...
What they really mean is America for Obama.
In the Soviet Union the corrupt government destroyed good stewardts and the environment. This is a repeat.
Red tape to push people to bankrupcy or delinquency... they do that with the mortgage crisis and many other things,
This is the start of a storm... of an inflationary storm by red tape and despair for more taxes in a sea of corruption and waste.
So be it.
oh, the Chinese government is a known “run on the banks” terror land. It is infecting america and the IRS.
This is a Chinese tactic, but we are not building an obsolete dam, we are “saving a turtle”.... from tragedy to a farce.
The overspending and IRS taxing is going to inherently cause a bank draft and run. Nothing will be left without good stewartds like this rancher but despair and idiot thugs.
We are heading for a disaster.
Did they do this all over a freaking turtle???
They used it for grazing cattle as open range, then paid grazing fees to use it when that became the law.
I never said anything about the BLM deeming the land closed for grazing to everybody. I said Bundy refused to renew his agreement and courts first ordered Bundy to remove his cattle nearly twenty years ago. That is true.
The fact that the BLM will not allow grazing on this range by anybody supports my statement that the Bundy family does not own this land. If 'anybody' could otherwise graze on this range by agreement with the BLM if not for the desert tortoise, it means that Bundy did not own the land.
As for water rights, can a party own water rights in a piece of property he or she doesn't own without a conveyance of those rights? How did Bundy obtain water rights in the BLM property? Water rights law is complex, especially in the the west, and I don't claim to know much about it. I've skimmed Nevada statutes on water rights but haven't looked at any case law.
Bundy has NOT paid grazing fees to Clark County. That's a lie made up by Bundy supporters, similar to the lie that this land is 'his' ranch.
From Breitbart and multiple other sources:
The protracted conflict began in 1993, five years before the land was ruled to be off limits for grazing, when Cliven refused to pay grazing fees to the BLM. We [the public] own this land, he said, not the feds. Bundy says he is willing to pay grazing fees to Clark County but not to the BLM."
I've yet to find a single source saying that Bundy has paid his grazing fees.
A court ordered Bundy off this land before the land was ruled to be off limits for grazing.
I guess im a bit naive but why does the federel govt. own cattle grazing land and then claim that endangered turtles are more imortant to the economy than cattle raised for food?
Cliven Bundy refused to renew his agreement to graze cattle on the federal land twenty years ago. He quit paying the grazing fees that his family had been paying.
He did so five years before the land was closed to all grazing because of the endangered species, and was first ordered by a federal court to remove his cattle from this land approximately three years before the endangered species-based closure.
As Ann Barnhardt says:
[T]his is NOT a good battle to pick. The guy in question has been grazing his cattle at essentially zero feed cost for upwards of twenty years (well, THAT makes the cattle business easier, doesnt it!) because he stopped paying the BLM any lease charges. Again, we can debate all manner of things including the ridiculous rules about closing land to grazing in order to protect lizards or prairie chickens or whatever the fake endangered species du jour is, and certainly we can debate the existence of the BLM itself, but there is no free lunch; everyone else pays to graze.
all that is understood. But, you are in essence making my point! Why the hell do the feds own so much of state land? What the hell is going on? I agree the guy should have either bought the property or paid up but you have to admit its weird that the feds own so much of state land that could be much better used by private entreprenuers,IMHO?
I think the one thing we can all agree on here is:
“Why isn’t this a dispute between the State of Utah and the Rancher? Instead of being a dispute between the federal government and a private individual....”
The rancher in the article is NOT the one I was referring to.
Watch "Enemies of the State" on Youtube for the Fox News special on Wayne Hage, Catherine Englebrecht, an oil producer, and Gibson. Very well done, makes you grit your teeth and say "Hell yeah, bring it on."
He leases (or used to) large portions of his ranch from the Federal government. This is nt uncommon in the west where the Federal government “owns” anywhere from 60-80% of the land in these intermountain western states.
I understand that his family has been using the land, probably before the Federal government got involved. but for years he & his family paid the Federal leases. Then he stopped.
He is going to have a tough time of it. Since his family and he paid those leases, they established the relationship...and did so for many years. Now he wants to not pay the leases any more (and in fact stopped paying some time ago I believe) and does not want to have that land administered by the Feds.
It is an understandable position...but since they paid the lease for so many years, he established he relationship with the Feds. And, since the Federal government “owns” the land (whether they should do so or not is a different discussion) and since he paid them to lease it...he is going to be hard pressed not to abide their rules for the lease.
Anyhow, that it as I understand it.
Thanks. I do not need this event to yell “BRING it ON!” :-)
Then keep up with the payments. That’s all he needed to do. Clearly it was one hell of deal for many years prior to this. I certainly am not advocate for the government, but I also know that if there is no oversight of such leases, “people will be people” and will destroy the land, tortoise or not. We see this time and time again, where people eff things up if given the opportunity. Government is a prime example!! Public lands, federal lands, whatever. Given the chance, dam people ruin things.
He did pay grazing fees to Clark County not the BLM. The BLM has refused them because they have closed the area to grazing for the turtle.No, that's not the timeline.
Why the hell do the feds own so much of state land? What the hell is going on?That goes back to the treaty we made with Mexico in 1848. The huge percentage of land in Nevada that's owned by the Feds is pretty much land that not even the state of Nevada wants. It's all marginal, mostly uninhabitable. It's only good for mining, foresting, or grazing leases.
Oh yeah commerce clause whatever. Wrong is still wrong. Here is the means of production of major industries in the western states, claimed by the federal government and enforced through the barrel of a gun. What was that called again?
The BLM Gestapo has to be tried and convicted and shipped to a newly built prison in the Northeastern corner of Alaska, along with Obama, Holder, Reid and the whole damn gang. Relieve Biden of his duties, but don’t imprison him. There has to be allowances for the mentally handicapped...