re: Do Other Nevada Ranchers, or Ranchers in Other States, Pay Grazing Fees?

If we can save only one turtle it is worth it

quote:

---

And I'm beginning to think you're just a moron. But I'll type slowly so that you might understand.

---

Compelling argument. Terrific analysis of the facts. It's difficult to argue with such a nimble display of wit and intelligence. Nevertheless, I shall endeavor to persevere.

quote:

---

If someone comes into my house and degrades it, like with a meth lab then I would destroy the meth lab. If someone comes into my home and puts in some really nice water works and perhaps a pool I would not destroy it. That would be a RAID. The purpose of the RAID is to intimidate, destroy and set an example for anyone who would oppose the FEDS.

That's what RAID means. Perhaps you would use the word 'house warming'.

---

Your argument has three fundamental flaws.


First, you don't seem to have a clear understanding of the word "raid." Raid does not mean “intimidate, destroy and set an example for anyone who would oppose the FEDS.”

raid (rad) n.
1. A surprise attack by a small armed force.
2. A sudden forcible entry into a place by police: a raid on a gambling den.
3. An entrance into another's territory for the purpose of seizing goods or valuables.

Thus, for an action to constitute a raid, one would expect some combination of three things: (1) surprise, (2) suddenness, and (3) entrance into another’s territory.


Second, you don't seem to have clear knowledge of the facts in this matter.

The feds did not act with surprise. The feds obtained a court order last year, gave Bundy notice of their plans, and published their plans on the BLM website.

The feds did not act suddenly. Bundy stopped paying the fees in 1993; Bundy's grazing rights were canceled in 1994; Bundy was enjoined from trespassing on the property at issue in 1998; and Bundy was ordered to remove his cattle by November 30, 1998. This matter has been a long time in the making.

The feds did not enter into another’s territory. Even Bundy does not claim that the property at issue is his. Moreover, the issue of who owns the property has been answered multiple times by the courts.


Third, your argument clearly reflects a qualitative judgment on the improvements of the trespasser. You specifically use contrasting qualitative words such as “degrades” and “really nice” in an attempt to boost your argument However, your particular choice of whether something is really nice or degrading is completely irrelevant. The decision of whether something enhances or detracts from a piece of property is solely the landowner’s decision.

Nevertheless, the landowner in this case has determined that cattle watering tanks and the other improvements that were constructed and serve solely to assist in cattle grazing are likely to promote illegal cattle grazing on federal property while the destruction of such items will impede such illegal and damaging activity.

Thus, if one is rational, one can only conclude that the feds action, permitted sixteen years ago, planned at least several months ago, published on the BLM website, and occurring solely on land owned by the feds, is not a raid.

quote:

---

The what?
The grazing rights?

Please continue.

---

Clearly, Bundy had the right to use the Bunkerville Allotment as long as he had a valid permit from the BLM. When he refused to pay the proper grazing fees and his permit was canceled, his right to have his cattle graze on the Bunkerville Allotment ceased. Moreover, the courts specifically enjoined him from having his cattle trespass on federal property, and the courts ordered him to remove his cattle from the Bunkerville Allotment.

Nevada has no law that allows a person to obtain grazing rights on federal land. The only means by which Bundy could have his cattle on federal land is by compliance with federal law as administered by the BLM. Bundy knowingly and willingly refused to comply.

quote:

---

There are more UFO sightings per year than turtles trampled by cattle.

---

quote:

---

A major portion of the area was designated as critical habitat, land determined to be essential to a species existence. The primary problem was not cattle trampling tortoises; rather, the primary problem is that cattle and desert tortoise compete for the same food.

---

Man that went right over your head.

quote:

---

The feds did not act with surprise. The feds obtained a court order last year, gave Bundy notice of their plans, and published their plans on the BLM website.

The feds did not act suddenly. Bundy stopped paying the fees in 1993; Bundy's grazing rights were canceled in 1994; Bundy was enjoined from trespassing on the property at issue in 1998; and Bundy was ordered to remove his cattle by November 30, 1998. This matter has been a long time in the making.

The feds did not enter into another’s territory. Even Bundy does not claim that the property at issue is his. Moreover, the issue of who owns the property has been answered multiple times by the courts.


Third, your argument clearly reflects a qualitative judgment on the improvements of the trespasser. You specifically use contrasting qualitative words such as “degrades” and “really nice” in an attempt to boost your argument However, your particular choice of whether something is really nice or degrading is completely irrelevant. The decision of whether something enhances or detracts from a piece of property is solely the landowner’s decision.

Nevertheless, the landowner in this case has determined that cattle watering tanks and the other improvements that were constructed and serve solely to assist in cattle grazing are likely to promote illegal cattle grazing on federal property while the destruction of such items will impede such illegal and damaging activity.

Thus, if one is rational, one can only conclude that the feds action, permitted sixteen years ago, planned at least several months ago, published on the BLM website, and occurring solely on land owned by the feds, is not a raid.

---

Too many damn facts.

quote:

---

I didn't think you would waste time with a pointless reference to a different thread.

Should I be disappointed in you this time or is this your modus operandi?

---

Definitely an alter.

LINK

quote:

---

The Bureau of Land Management, whose director was Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.

---

This could be why the Gov has spent $3m to collect $1m.

The Last Cowboy Song

Amurica.

quote:

---

Too many damn facts.

---

All of which misses the forest for the trees.