- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 300+ Nevada ranchers and militia stage an armed insurrection against the USBLM
Posted on 4/16/14 at 8:46 am to Methuselah
Posted on 4/16/14 at 8:46 am to Methuselah
quote:
Question is, is the party that was "cheated" justified in taking matters into their own hands via the use of weapons.
Let's keep in mind that both parties had weapons.
In fact, the first use of weapons was by the government, not the Bundy's.
We have to separate the right vs wrong on the source of conflict and the method of protest/resistance.
0
Posted on 4/16/14 at 9:03 am to Placebeaux
quote:Yes.
Are you talking about licenses?
quote:No doubt about that.
But if the government is good at anything it's coming up with new ways and reasons to collect more money.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 9:12 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
What if I don't want a pipeline crossing my land at any price, and I'm willing to take a stand like Bundy is? It will be interesting how many supporters and detractors of Bundy will be consistent in who they support in that scenario.
This is different in that Bundy is not the landowner. What is in question is his rights and who he is beholden to in paying for those rights and who has enforcement jurisdiction. There is also the ethical questions of the way the government went about forcing the ranchers out.
The Constitution provides a method for acquiring land for the Keystone pipeline.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 9:24 am to Mohican
quote:
Gradually, the real back story has emerged. The original bullhocky story about the cattle endangering desert tortoises fell apart when the truth was discovered that only recently the BLM had gerrymandered the boundaries of endangered habitat and created a mitigation area needed to replace habitat where Harry Reid’s son and a Chinese energy company planned to build a 5 billion dollar solar energy project.
The federal subsidies for that project have yet been fully discovered. The BLM web site has been scrubbed of details except for some limited images that got reproduced by Free Republic and now abound on the internet. However, it takes more than a few days to develop a plan for a 5 billion dollar solar farm covering more than 5000 acres. It is now known that in order for “Non-Governmental Organizations” (the Chinese) to move forward with development of the “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone” that project will destroy desert habitat in the Zone. Therefore an “offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development” area needed to be established. Those exact words remain available on the reproduced sections of the BLM web pages.What that means is, the developers needed to replace one habit with another. Such a new site would need to be far enough away from the toxic solar energy farm to attract the occasional migrating southwestern willow flycatcher ( a bird more commonly found in southern California and Arizona ).
Posted on 4/16/14 at 9:29 am to CAD703X
Well... well... well.... The truth rears it's ugly head.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 9:30 am to CAD703X
So they want the land to build a solar energy farm?
Posted on 4/16/14 at 9:51 am to boom roasted
quote:
So they want the land to build a solar energy farm?
Yes.
More strictly speaking, they're building a solar plant elsewhere and the law requires them to have an offsetting desert habitat to replace what they're destroying with the farm.
They're attempting to get that land by fricking Bundy.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 9:53 am to CAD703X
The solar site is 2.5 hours/180 miles from Bundy's ranch.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 9:57 am to Darth_Vader
quote:We already knew the Reids were slimy, corrupt fricks.
The truth rears it's ugly head.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 9:58 am to Macphisto
quote:
Macphisto
you have reading comprehension issues
quote:
More strictly speaking, they're building a solar plant elsewhere and the law requires them to have an offsetting desert habitat to replace what they're destroying with the farm.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 9:58 am to Macphisto
quote:
The solar site is 2.5 hours/180 miles from Bundy's ranch.
Irrelevant.
The important sentence in that quote is as follows:
"Therefore an “offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development” area needed to be established."
The Chinese firm has to obtain a desert habitat large enough to offset the habitat they're destroying through the creation of the solar farm.
It doesn't matter where in Nevada that site is as long as it is set aside to "mitigate for impacts from solar development".
Posted on 4/16/14 at 10:01 am to teke184
quote:I feel bad for the guy, but is the fed government supposed to be stuck with this guy / his family forever? Put another way, is the fed goverment stuck with the rancher until the rancher decides to stop using the land?
They're attempting to get that land by fricking Bundy.
This post was edited on 4/16/14 at 10:05 am
Posted on 4/16/14 at 10:07 am to boom roasted
quote:
s the fed goverment stuck with the rancher until the rancher decides to stop using the land?
what? how are they stuck with anything. its a few cattle wandering over several thousand acres of desert land that just kinda sits there.
they came up with the 'cattle fee' to run off all the ranchers (which they did) except Bundy.
when the chinese solar farm goes up, they have to have an equal offset to match. they can't very well do that if there's a few hundred head of cattle roaming around out there somewhere.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 10:10 am to CAD703X
do you know how REMOTE the desert land is in nevada???
i do. i spent some time there. there is *NOTHING* out there...for what seems like hundreds and hundreds of miles.
if you think the idea that a few cattle that wander into the 'government side' of this EMPTINESS and step on a TURTLE is cause for the BLM to swoop in with guns and round up this guy's cattle, then you really do drink the government koolaid.
this is politics plain and simple. ranchers don't play politics very well.
i do. i spent some time there. there is *NOTHING* out there...for what seems like hundreds and hundreds of miles.
if you think the idea that a few cattle that wander into the 'government side' of this EMPTINESS and step on a TURTLE
is cause for the BLM to swoop in with guns and round up this guy's cattle, then you really do drink the government koolaid. this is politics plain and simple. ranchers don't play politics very well.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 10:10 am to CAD703X
You didn't answer the question.
If the federal government wants to use the land for something else (endangered species offset, or whatever), is the federal government stuck with the rancher until the rancher decides to stop using the land?
If the federal government wants to use the land for something else (endangered species offset, or whatever), is the federal government stuck with the rancher until the rancher decides to stop using the land?
quote:I understand that, which is what my question addresses.
when the chinese solar farm goes up, they have to have an equal offset to match. they can't very well do that if there's a few hundred head of cattle roaming around out there somewhere.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 10:11 am to boom roasted
quote:
I feel bad for the guy, but is the fed government supposed to be stuck with this guy / his family forever? Is the fed goverment stuck with the rancher until the rancher decides to stop using the land?
IMHO, the government has methods they could use to stop Bundy's ranching on the public lands in question.
Going after him and other ranchers in the area very unethically, such as skyrocketing their per head / per day rates as well as severely limiting their allowed herd sizes, though, is just strongarm bullshite.
If the government wanted him out, they should have renewed his lease and said "At the end of the lease (maybe 10 years), we're not renewing it again."
That's different from jacking rates up through the roof to try and price him out of the business and sending jackbooted thugs to rustle his herd.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 10:12 am to CAD703X
quote:I drove through a lot of it this past winter. Definitely a lot of nothing out there.
do you know how REMOTE the desert land is in nevada???
quote:I don't think the BLM handled it well.
if you think the idea that a few cattle that wander into the 'government side' of this EMPTINESS and step on a TURTLE is cause for the BLM to swoop in with guns and round up this guy's cattle, then you really do drink the government koolaid.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 10:13 am to teke184
quote:
government has methods they could use to stop Bundy's ranching on the public lands in question.
ITS A frickING DESERT. thats the whole point.
the government can't even find the damn cattle or prove is on their land unless they erect a fence for probably A THOUSAND SQUARE MILES
they just dont like the fact the cattle *MIGHT* be out there..somewhere.
just look at how difficult the case has been..they've spent YEARS spying on him trying to see if the cattle cross the imaginary line in the desert that separates his land.
maybe this will help
Posted on 4/16/14 at 10:14 am to teke184
quote:Is there a lease that the rancher signs? Does anyone have the text of that? Everyone seems to be referencing a lease and that the BLM didn't hold up their end of the bargain, but no one can produce it.
If the government wanted him out, they should have renewed his lease and said "At the end of the lease (maybe 10 years), we're not renewing it again."
And I think they've been trying to get him out (or pay the fees) since the late 90s. Whatever they tried in the past didn't work.
This post was edited on 4/16/14 at 10:16 am
Posted on 4/16/14 at 10:18 am to boom roasted
quote:
I feel bad for the guy, but is the fed government supposed to be stuck with this guy / his family forever? Until the rancher decides to stop using the land?
Yep. Apparently the lesson here is if you and your ancestors get to do something for cheap for a while then you are entitled to do it forever.
This whole thing is nuts to me.
Imagine there was a Louisiana fisherman who for the last 20 years has been completely ignoring all Louisiana fishing regulations regarding licensing, limits and size.
And then the LDWF tried to make him stop.
And his arguments were that his great-grandfather didn't used to have limits, and that he refuses to recognize the authority of the state of Louisiana in salt water.
And then the entire country got super angry at the State and armed protesters started showing up demanding that this guy get to do whatever he wants for free for ever.
That's pretty much whats going on here.
Page 12 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News