quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

If you owe me a million dollars its a pretty big deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I've only been following this story on a superficial level, but there are some things that I'm not sure about. From what I've read, this family had been grazing cattle on federal land for over a century, apparently without any problem, but then, it became a problem at some point about 20 years ago. But it's only been recently that there's been actual force used and threats of violence?

Apart from the use of guns and threats and other potentially "seditious" activity, just how severe of a violation is it for someone to graze their cattle on federal land? Is it one of those things where "everybody" does it and the government just treats it with a slap on the wrist (or might use it to single someone out for selective enforcement)? Is it something akin to a speeding ticket or someone smoking pot? I understand it's against the law, but I'm just not clear on the magnitude or the severity of such a violation.

The problem is 20 years ago the governament imposed a fee to graze the cattle on federal land for enviroment preservation reasons, all other farmers in the area paid he never did, He's been discevered and fined, he challenged the fine but lost twice, for what I read the last judge ordered he had to free the land within 45 days or pay the fine, if he could not pay they would have distrained the cattle to cover it. He didn't move the cattle before the deadline, nor paid the fine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

If you owe me a million dollars its a pretty big deal.

Yeah, I see what you're saying, although I should point out that I've been a city and suburb kid most of my life. When I go through some of these areas, they just seem like desolate, lonely places in the middle of nowhere. If there were any violations going on, it seems that it would be rare that anyone would be around to actually see it. But that's just how it looks like from an outsider; I have no idea how they actually check or keep track of whose cattle is grazing where or how they measure how much is actually owed.

I'm just trying to see it from different angles, to try to make sense of what seems like an utterly ridiculous situation. If they're saying that the fees are too high and that they're creating a hardship for the ranchers, then maybe that's something that can be addressed, but that doesn't seem to be the issue either. I can't really tell if there's a legitimate grievance, some need for reform in the BLM - or if some people of a certain political bent are looking for any excuse to go wild.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
The Bundy family had been grazing cattle on that publicly owned land for over a hundred years, but they had always bought the rights to do so by paying the necessary fees. The fees are paid at a certain amount per head of cattle. This helps to regulate the number of cattle to prevent over grazing, which causes soil erosion and can have an adverse effect on the plant and wildlife in the area.

Here is a link to a letter Bundy's daughter wrote in which she explains (or makes excuses for, depending on your point of view) her father's actions. http://viralsurvival.com/2014/04/15/cliven-bundys-daughter-shiree-bundy-cox-explains-why-the-blm-came-for-her-father/

Apparently, Bundy felt that the BLM should use the fees paid for grazing his cattle only for improvements to the land upon which his cattle were grazing. When they stopped using the fees the way Bundy thought they should be used, he stopped paying, but kept grazing his cattle on public land.

I couldn't help but laugh when she said her father "fired" the BLM and refused to pay any more fees to them.

Anyway, you can determine for yourself as to whether the family's actions made sense or not, and whether they were legal or not.

I get the fact that they violated the law by not paying the fee, but what I'm not sure about is how severe of a violation it actually is. Is it like a minor infraction or is it a super huge deal?

Basically, what I get from the daughter's letter is that Bundy stopped paying the fees as a form of protest and civil disobedience. She wrote that the fees were originally intended to help the cattle ranchers, but now she's saying that the government switched gears and started using the fees against the cattle ranchers to buy them out (for reasons which were never really explained). But even civil disobedience has its own consequences which should not have been any shock or surprise to him. (I wonder what Ben Cartwright would have done?)

Her letter seems to insinuate that the government wanted to drive the cattle ranchers out of business. But why would the government want to drive cattle ranchers out of business? The price of beef is going up lately for a variety of reasons, although I'm not sure if this incident will have any effect.

Do these grazing fees present a genuine hardship to the ranchers? The letter seems to allege that the fees were designed to drive Bundy and other cattle ranchers out of business, but if that was the case, wouldn't they have been able to prove it in court?

The bigger issue facing Nevada and other western states is the diminishing supply of water. I was just reading an article yesterday about Las Vegas and its primary source of water, Lake Mead, which is drying up. Overall, some hard decisions will have to be made about water usage and what kinds of industries and population sizes we can truly support in this part of the country. I don't know if the issue is really that we have too many cows. It may be that we have too many people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I've only been following this story on a superficial level, but there are some things that I'm not sure about. From what I've read, this family had been grazing cattle on federal land for over a century, apparently without any problem, but then, it became a problem at some point about 20 years ago. But it's only been recently that there's been actual force used and threats of violence?

Apart from the use of guns and threats and other potentially "seditious" activity, just how severe of a violation is it for someone to graze their cattle on federal land? Is it one of those things where "everybody" does it and the government just treats it with a slap on the wrist (or might use it to single someone out for selective enforcement)? Is it something akin to a speeding ticket or someone smoking pot? I understand it's against the law, but I'm just not clear on the magnitude or the severity of such a violation.

The problem is 20 years ago the governament imposed a fee to graze the cattle on federal land for enviroment preservation reasons, all other farmers in the area paid he never did, He's been discevered and fined, he challenged the fine but lost twice, for what I read the last judge ordered he had to free the land within 45 days or pay the fine, if he could not pay they would have distrained the cattle to cover it. He didn't move the cattle before the deadline, nor paid the fine.

No, that is when this idiot stopped paying grazing fees. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 started the fees, so they had been in place for quite some time before this moron's parents even moved into the area.

As for ancestral rights, turns out none of this guys ancestors were even in the area much before 1900, and those were not in the Virgin river area at all. His father actually moved to the area from Arizona.

In other words, this guy is so full of shit he makes the pile of bovine solid waste material found at any diary or feed lot look like a mole hill.

So, this guy deserves as much sympathy as the idiot in the White House.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

BLM fees, at one time, were used by the BLM for improvements. Improvements included erosion control, maintenance of access roads, building and maintaining campgrounds on BLM lands. i.e. National Forests and National Parks that are BLM lands.

In the early 90s, BLM fees were increased and the money started being diverted for other purposes than maintaining BLM lands.

Many ranchers and BLM lessees found this practice to be a government agency using them as a cash cow for purposes that were not in the best interests of the people.

Bundy is one of the more blatant and visible members of a nationwide disgust at the mismanagement of the Bureau of Land Management.

Consider the situation of you being told you cannot use your back field that was used by your family since your great grandfather's day because the BLM is re purposing your back field for another use. Would you be irate?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

BLM fees, at one time, were used by the BLM for improvements. Improvements included erosion control, maintenance of access roads, building and maintaining campgrounds on BLM lands. i.e. National Forests and National Parks that are BLM lands.

In the early 90s, BLM fees were increased and the money started being diverted for other purposes than maintaining BLM lands.

Many ranchers and BLM lessees found this practice to be a government agency using them as a cash cow for purposes that were not in the best interests of the people.

Bundy is one of the more blatant and visible members of a nationwide disgust at the mismanagement of the Bureau of Land Management.

Consider the situation of you being told you cannot use your back field that was used by your family since your great grandfather's day because the BLM is re purposing your back field for another use. Would you be irate?

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
BLM fees, at one time, were used by the BLM for improvements. Improvements included erosion control, maintenance of access roads, building and maintaining campgrounds on BLM lands. i.e. National Forests and National Parks that are BLM lands.
In the early 90s, BLM fees were increased and the money started being diverted for other purposes than maintaining BLM lands.
Many ranchers and BLM lessees found this practice to be a government agency using them as a cash cow for purposes that were not in the best interests of the people.
Bundy is one of the more blatant and visible members of a nationwide disgust at the mismanagement of the Bureau of Land Management.
Consider the situation of you being told you cannot use your back field that was used by your family since your great grandfather's day because the BLM is re purposing your back field for another use. Would you be irate?

Bundy does not own the land in question. It isn't HIS back field. At best, he has rented the land in the past. He stopped paying rent on that land, but still kept using it. The renter doesn't get to dictate what is done with his rental money, whether he agrees with it or not.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
BLM fees, at one time, were used by the BLM for improvements. Improvements included erosion control, maintenance of access roads, building and maintaining campgrounds on BLM lands. i.e. National Forests and National Parks that are BLM lands.
In the early 90s, BLM fees were increased and the money started being diverted for other purposes than maintaining BLM lands.
Many ranchers and BLM lessees found this practice to be a government agency using them as a cash cow for purposes that were not in the best interests of the people.
Bundy is one of the more blatant and visible members of a nationwide disgust at the mismanagement of the Bureau of Land Management.
Consider the situation of you being told you cannot use your back field that was used by your family since your great grandfather's day because the BLM is re purposing your back field for another use. Would you be irate?

Bundy does not own the land in question. It isn't HIS back field. At best, he has rented the land in the past. He stopped paying rent on that land, but still kept using it. The renter doesn't get to dictate what is done with his rental money, whether he agrees with it or not.

There is some point to that, but there is also a lease agreement that determines, at least somewhat, the reasoning for the costs of rent. The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The BLM does not turn a profit. It actually operates at a huge loss. Taxpayers actually subsidize the BLM.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The BLM does not turn a profit. It actually operates at a huge loss. Taxpayers actually subsidize the BLM.

Um, don't taxpayers subsidize pretty much every government office?

If the BLM gets into things that aren't authorized by it's purpose (which I'm not claiming is or isn't happening), then there may be an issue with fees being increased to cover that cost.

Should the BLM, in your opinion, have it's entire budget funded by fees, or should taxpayer moneys augment fee receipts to cover the budget?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There is some point to that, but there is also a lease agreement that determines, at least somewhat, the reasoning for the costs of rent. The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There is some point to that, but there is also a lease agreement that determines, at least somewhat, the reasoning for the costs of rent. The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too.

Any lease agreement became null and void when Bundy stopped paying the fees. And again, Bundy doesn't get to dictate what is done with the fees whether he agrees with it or not. If he doesn't agree with the fees or what is done with the money, then he has the right to stop paying, but that also means he takes his cattle off of that land. As it is, he's a thief. Period. And those "patriots" that are protecting him are aiding and abetting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The BLM should at least cover it's own expenses. It does not.
The BLM is supposed to manage the land it holds in trust for the American people. Ideally that management should allow the ranchers to use the land but not degrade it and not cost the other citizens a penny. How it actually works is we subsidize very wealthy ranchers.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There is some point to that, but there is also a lease agreement that determines, at least somewhat, the reasoning for the costs of rent. The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too.

Any lease agreement became null and void when Bundy stopped paying the fees. And again, Bundy doesn't get to dictate what is done with the fees whether he agrees with it or not. If he doesn't agree with the fees or what is done with the money, then he has the right to stop paying, but that also means he takes his cattle off of that land. As it is, he's a thief. Period. And those "patriots" that are protecting him are aiding and abetting.

No, not "period."

He absolutely does have the right to stop paying for the lease. IMO (and I've not wavered from this), he also shouldn't be grazing his cattle on the land. In his view, it's State property, and he paid the State. In the State's view, it's BLM property, and they returned his payment. The simple fact that the State returned his payment also strikes me as him not having permission to graze his cattle on the land.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The BLM should at least cover it's own expenses. It does not.
The BLM is supposed to manage the land it holds in trust for the American people. Ideally that management should allow the ranchers to use the land but not degrade it and not cost the other citizens a penny. How it actually works is we subsidize very wealthy ranchers.

The BLM is supposed to manage the land for the American people. We completely agree on that. Allowing ranchers grazing rights should bring in revenues. But, should those revenues account for all the costs of the BLM, or just the costs those ranchers grazing their cattle cause the BLM? I'm not arguing that the BLM shouldn't collect revenues, but that those revenues should be the only thing supporting the agency. Does the BLM hold any property that doesn't allow grazing, or have any other leases available, but is still being kept up? Should ranchers be the only ones paying for the BLM?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There is some point to that, but there is also a lease agreement that determines, at least somewhat, the reasoning for the costs of rent. The lease cost for grazing should be kept within the BLM for BLM purposes, too.

Any lease agreement became null and void when Bundy stopped paying the fees. And again, Bundy doesn't get to dictate what is done with the fees whether he agrees with it or not. If he doesn't agree with the fees or what is done with the money, then he has the right to stop paying, but that also means he takes his cattle off of that land. As it is, he's a thief. Period. And those "patriots" that are protecting him are aiding and abetting.

No, not "period."
He absolutely does have the right to stop paying for the lease. IMO (and I've not wavered from this), he also shouldn't be grazing his cattle on the land. In his view, it's State property, and he paid the State. In the State's view, it's BLM property, and they returned his payment. The simple fact that the State returned his payment also strikes me as him not having permission to graze his cattle on the land.

He has never paid the state a dime. If he was paying the state this would be a big boon for both Nevada and the BLM since Nevada charges roughly 10 times as much per head of cattle as the BLM does.

quote:

Cliven Bundy did attempt to pay his fees to Clark County, the entity he saw as the right administrator of the Gold Butte area, said Ryan Bundy, one of Cliven Bundy’s sons. The county ultimately refused to accept his payments...

quote:

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
The BLM should at least cover it's own expenses. It does not.
The BLM is supposed to manage the land it holds in trust for the American people. Ideally that management should allow the ranchers to use the land but not degrade it and not cost the other citizens a penny. How it actually works is we subsidize very wealthy ranchers.

The BLM is supposed to manage the land for the American people. We completely agree on that. Allowing ranchers grazing rights should bring in revenues. But, should those revenues account for all the costs of the BLM, or just the costs those ranchers grazing their cattle cause the BLM? I'm not arguing that the BLM shouldn't collect revenues, but that those revenues should be the only thing supporting the agency. Does the BLM hold any property that doesn't allow grazing, or have any other leases available, but is still being kept up? Should ranchers be the only ones paying for the BLM?

You really don't understand the BLM or what is going on in this case.
The BLM gets grazing fees and fees from loggers and miners (anyone extracting anything from BLM land). However the fees are set by a schedule setup in the 1960's and it doesn't come anywhere near covering the costs of those activities to the US government.
The BLM grazing fee is always right around $1.50 per head of cattle per month while on private land it is usually $20 per month or even much higher.
http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewild/commentary/2014-public-land-grazing-fee-the-same-as-2013-and-2012-and-2011.html
So like I said we subsidize these very wealthy ranchers and do not believe the lies spewed by the right wing lie machine about Cliven Bundy.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)