- 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 4/15/14 at 4:41 pm to MasterofTigerBait
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:41 pm to MasterofTigerBait
quote:
State owns the land
Rancher bought the grazing rights, which were not guaranteed
Idk where to stand on this, from my understanding he definitely has been bullied bait. On the other side he relied on something that wasn't definite and should have just sold his cattle to cut his losses. Sometimes people dig their own grave.
this is kinda how I feel. I get that he's pissed that they stripped his rights, but I can't help but think that there were never any promises made.
2
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:45 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Who's court?
Court isn't a person. By "court" he meant the legal system.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:49 pm to MountainTiger
quote:
By "court" he meant the legal system.
And by "who's" (
I assume he meant whose) he meant fedgov.Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:49 pm to MountainTiger
quote:The (dumb) point he was trying to make was that Bundy has no chance because the case will be heard in a federal court, implying that federal judges are somehow beholden to the federal government.
Court isn't a person. By "court" he meant the legal system.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:53 pm to boom roasted
quote:
The (dumb) point he was trying to make was that Bundy has no chance because the case will be heard in a federal court, implying that federal judges are somehow beholden to the federal government.
He was implying that federal courts would simply automatically support the decisions by another branch of government. However, unlike state courts where this behavior is more often than not par for the course, federal courts are generally much more likely to not rule in favor of the government than are state courts. That being said, federal courts do still side with the government more often than not.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:54 pm to boom roasted
I know...just fricking with him.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 10:18 pm to cas4t
Bundy seems to be using all the wrong excuses for not paying in my opinion, but I'll side with the cattle rancher over the son of the Democratic US Senator using multiple Federal agencies to force a farmer off his land to sell it to the Chinese.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 10:20 pm to hawgfaninc
Nevada getting all excited and stuff lately
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:10 am to kingbob
quote:
I'd say, the real question is, if they'd been there for 100+ years, how did the land not belong to Bundy under the Homestead Act?
There are specific things one must do to acquire land under the Homestead Act. Bundy's ancestors didn't do any of them. His family own 160 acres, and have been essentially squatting over several dozen square miles square miles surrounding it.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 6:03 am to Jim Rockford
I was confused about what grazing fees are so I looked it up. Wow! You have to pay the government for livestock to graze on your own land. That's insane.
quote:
Grazing Permit System Any U.S. citizen or validly licensed business can apply for a BLM grazing permit or lease. To do so, one must either: buy or control private property (known as “base property”) that has been legally recognized by the Bureau as having preference for the use of public land grazing privileges, or acquire property that has the capability to serve as base property and then apply to the BLM to transfer the preference for grazing privileges from an existing base property to the acquired property (which would become the new “base property”).
The first alternative happens when base property (a private ranch) is sold or leased to a new individual or business; the buyer or lessee then applies to the BLM for the use of grazing privileges associated with that property. The second alternative would happen when a rancher wants to transfer existing public land grazing privileges to another party while keeping the private ranch property. Before buying or leasing ranch property, it is advisable to contact the BLM Field Office that administers grazing in the area of the base property. The BLM has information on the status of the grazing privileges attached to the base property, including the terms and conditions of the associated grazing permit or lease that authorizes the use of those privileges and other important information. All applicants for grazing permits or leases must meet the qualifications for public land grazing privileges that are specified in the BLM’s grazing regulations.
quote:
Grazing Permit System Any U.S. citizen or validly licensed business can apply for a BLM grazing permit or lease. To do so, one must either: buy or control private property (known as “base property”) that has been legally recognized by the Bureau as having preference for the use of public land grazing privileges, or acquire property that has the capability to serve as base property and then apply to the BLM to transfer the preference for grazing privileges from an existing base property to the acquired property (which would become the new “base property”).
The first alternative happens when base property (a private ranch) is sold or leased to a new individual or business; the buyer or lessee then applies to the BLM for the use of grazing privileges associated with that property. The second alternative would happen when a rancher wants to transfer existing public land grazing privileges to another party while keeping the private ranch property. Before buying or leasing ranch property, it is advisable to contact the BLM Field Office that administers grazing in the area of the base property. The BLM has information on the status of the grazing privileges attached to the base property, including the terms and conditions of the associated grazing permit or lease that authorizes the use of those privileges and other important information. All applicants for grazing permits or leases must meet the qualifications for public land grazing privileges that are specified in the BLM’s grazing regulations.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 6:27 am to Placebeaux
quote:
I was confused about what grazing fees are so I looked it up. Wow! You have to pay the government for livestock to graze on your own land. That's insane.
Read it again. That's what it says. The private property comes with the right to graze on associated public property. That's what you pay the fee for.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 6:59 am to Jim Rockford
Jim, what's your take on this? I see myself leaning more Bundy.
Hypothetical example:
Say the fed puts millions into rebuilding the marshlands in Louisiana. What's to stop them from passing a bill requiring all commercial fishermen to pay a similar fee? The fee seems to be there to cover the cost of the upkeep of the land even though they haven't ever planted a thing, they just monitor right?
Hypothetical example:
Say the fed puts millions into rebuilding the marshlands in Louisiana. What's to stop them from passing a bill requiring all commercial fishermen to pay a similar fee? The fee seems to be there to cover the cost of the upkeep of the land even though they haven't ever planted a thing, they just monitor right?
Posted on 4/16/14 at 7:07 am to Placebeaux
quote:
ay the fed puts millions into rebuilding the marshlands in Louisiana. What's to stop them from passing a bill requiring all commercial fishermen to pay a similar fee
Finally someone else on this thread has connected the dots too!
Posted on 4/16/14 at 7:19 am to CAD703X
So what's the upshot? Has the guy got away with not paying the fees? The articles linked above says the BLM backed off and returned his cattle. Is that still the status quo? If so, I'd expect you'll see a lot of people who owe money to the govt. and lose their cases in court gathering up a couple hundred armed people to "support" them.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 7:31 am to cas4t
quote:
Idk where to stand on this, from my understanding he definitely has been bullied bait. On the other side he relied on something that wasn't definite and should have just sold his cattle to cut his losses. Sometimes people dig their own grave.
I respect him for making a stand. The BLM change their whole purpose of existence mid game then required the ranchers to keep paying. F$%k that. Seems to me this is more about principles than money. More power to him.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 7:32 am to Placebeaux
quote:Commercial fisherman do pay fees to fish Louisiana waters. And the land isnt owned by the federal government. So the hypo isn't comparable to Bundy's situation.
Say the fed puts millions into rebuilding the marshlands in Louisiana. What's to stop them from passing a bill requiring all commercial fishermen to pay a similar fee?
This post was edited on 4/16/14 at 7:37 am
Posted on 4/16/14 at 8:10 am to boom roasted
quote:
Commercial fisherman do pay fees to fish Louisiana waters. And the land isnt owned by the federal government. So the hypo isn't comparable to Bundy's situation.
Are you talking about licenses?
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 8:13 am to Methuselah
quote:
gathering up a couple hundred armed people to "support" them.
I agree that Reid and company don't give a damn about the turtle just like these "supporters" don't give a damn about Bundy. They're looking for an excuse to play Rambo.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 8:31 am to Teufelhunden
According to this article the underlying dispute seems to be more about the grazing of wild horses v. cattle than about a turtle.
To be honest, I don't care that much about wild horses, turtles or Bundy and I'm not ultra informed on the details of that debate.
What I do feel is that allowing people to dictate changes in your position at gunpoint is probably not the best long range plan.
Pretty much every case that goes to court, whether it is between the govt. and an individual, between a big company and an individual or between a big company and a small comapny, one of the parties is going to come out of it feeling cheated. And sometimes they were - whether it is because of some loophole or technicality, because one side can outspend the other, because of better legal repesentation or for whatever reason.
Question is, is the party that was "cheated" justified in taking matters into their own hands via the use of weapons.
To be honest, I don't care that much about wild horses, turtles or Bundy and I'm not ultra informed on the details of that debate.
What I do feel is that allowing people to dictate changes in your position at gunpoint is probably not the best long range plan.
Pretty much every case that goes to court, whether it is between the govt. and an individual, between a big company and an individual or between a big company and a small comapny, one of the parties is going to come out of it feeling cheated. And sometimes they were - whether it is because of some loophole or technicality, because one side can outspend the other, because of better legal repesentation or for whatever reason.
Question is, is the party that was "cheated" justified in taking matters into their own hands via the use of weapons.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 8:36 am to Methuselah
As I mentioned in another thread, landowners along the Keystone XL right of way should be watching this with interest.
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.
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.
Page 11 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News