Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jim Robinson

Out of curiosity, is the bit about Bundy not paying the land fees correct?


6 posted on 04/11/2014 10:11:36 PM PDT by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Little Pig
Out of curiosity, is the bit about Bundy not paying the land fees correct?

If it is should he be killed for it? That's a hell of a tax penalty.

7 posted on 04/11/2014 10:13:35 PM PDT by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Little Pig; Kenny

It say 900 cattle on desert land. What is the carrying capacity of such land. Ranchers have a right to run cattle on public lands for a fee (usually fairly low which it says he is not paying), but they don’t have a right to destroy the land with over grazing. It sounds like he is just plain against. Of course, with 14 children, he may not have the money.


10 posted on 04/11/2014 10:18:29 PM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Little Pig; Jim Robinson

This is from Bundy’s daughter on their webpage. She explains how it came to this. Lots of misspellings and other errors, but the point gets across:

http://standwiththebundys.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/a-message-from-shiree-bundy-cox/


11 posted on 04/11/2014 10:19:02 PM PDT by leapfrog0202 ("the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery" Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Little Pig

Out of curiosity, is the bit about Bundy not paying the land fees correct?

*******

Sort of. His family has had defacto possession and use of this land for over 130 years. At some point they did pay fees which were imposed later. Originally the fees were funneled back as assistance, and that stopped. Standard federal breach of contract, because they can. Anyway, Bundy at some point started years worth of legal proceedings and in the interim offered the payments to other state and county entities which refused the payments. One by one all of the area ranchers have been driven out or given up over increased strictures and fees. Bundy is the last one in the area still in operation.

Bundy has a case, albeit an antiquated one. Forty or fifty years ago he might have prevailed, but we were a nation of laws then.


13 posted on 04/11/2014 10:20:48 PM PDT by Psalm 144 (FIGHT! FIGHT! SEVERE CONSERVATIVE AND THE WILD RIGHT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Little Pig

Yes from what I read, this is correct, but he says he would gladly pay the fees to Clark County Nevada if they sent him a bill, says does not recognize the feds owning Nevada land as when his family started grazing on it, it was state of Nevada or maybe even still a territory... Personally I think the land rights should be grandfathered to him in this case... If he had set up a mine there 140 years ago and produced enough from the land, it would have been a patented claim and he would have owned the land outright...


42 posted on 04/11/2014 11:43:35 PM PDT by AzNASCARfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Little Pig

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/bundy_ranch_the_federal_government_and_the_nevada_water_tipping_point.html


49 posted on 04/12/2014 2:46:23 AM PDT by Kackikat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson