- 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
0
Posted on 4/15/14 at 3:19 pm to Itismemc
quote:
Bundy grazed his cattle legally on an area of federal land near Bunkerville prior to 1993, but when grazing rules were changed in the Gold Butte, Nevada area in Clark County
Thanks. In the same article you linked it said the rules were changed because of a tortoise. It also said that Bundy's grazing acreage was cut by 90% and his herd size was restricted to 150 head. A reason to be pissed.
FWIW, I also read somewhere that the fees being collected from the grazing from all the ranchers were supposed to be used to improve the properties where the grazing took place. The article said that as of recently only 9% of the money collected was being used for improvements. Another reason to be pissed.
So the federal government changed horses in the middle of the race on him. Whether he's right or wrong in his actions I can see where he had all the reason in the world to be pissed.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 3:19 pm to dante
quote:I have not seen any credible source mention a reduction in the size of the property on which Bundy's cattle were allowed to graze. The BLM did limit the number of cattle allowed to graze on the federal property.
I believe that is when the BLM confiscated over 100,000 acres of Golden Butte and made it off limits to the cattle because of the desert turtle. They also placed restrictions on the ranchers about the number of cows permitted.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 3:27 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
So the federal government changed horses in the middle of the race on him. Whether he's right or wrong in his actions I can see where he had all the reason in the world to be pissed.
That's what we're saying. Bundy turned around and had an illogical response to a legitimate grievance, but the government's actions were illogical (as far as adhering to their stated goals) as well. The government can only push people around so much before crazies push back. When the government pushes back too much, even logical people begin to mistrust and hate the government do much that they support the crazies. Once more people support the crazies than the government, regime change is inevitable.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 3:54 pm to Salviati
quote:I think this area includes much of Golden Butte. When the BLM designated this an ACEC they also reduced the number of cattle.
Desert Tortoise ACECs
The Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994) directs land management agencies to protect reserves for desert tortoises measuring 1,000 square miles (640,000 acres) each. When undeveloped habitat of that size does not exist, multiple smaller, more intensively managed reserves should be established with a combined total of at least 1,000 square miles. The Las Vegas Field Office has protected 1,097 square miles (702,160 acres) of desert tortoise critical habitat in desert tortoise ACEC reserves. The majority of this habitat is within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit (NEMO RU), with 190,000 acres in the Eastern Mojave Recovery Unit (EMO RU). Each recovery unit is considered a distinct population in which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tracks the species progress towards recovery of the species. The ACEC boundaries were established to match the boundaries of desert tortoise critical habitat where the habitat was largely intact and where tortoise populations were highest. Boundaries differed in some locations to exclude degraded habitat and to add habitat outside critical habitat designated areas to make up for the degraded areas.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:13 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
It also said that Bundy's grazing acreage was cut by 90%
Isn't that only Bundy's federal grazing acreage? Doesn't he also graze some private lands? It would make a difference in that perhaps that 90% reduction in acreage is only about a 66% (for example) reduction in overall acreage.
quote:
and his herd size was restricted to 150 head
Similarly, only his heard size on those federal lands.
quote:
I also read somewhere that the fees being collected from the grazing from all the ranchers were supposed to be used to improve the properties where the grazing took place. Another reason to be pissed.
So the federal government changed horses in the middle of the race on him. Whether he's right or wrong in his actions I can see where he had all the reason in the world to be pissed.
there are always reasons to be pissed, especially in agriculture. The fact is that when I was a tenant, if the land lord didn't abide by the terms of the lease, and I got pissed off, I moved. What I didn't do was squat and threaten the land lord.
That said, once he started threatening violence, what can the land owner do? IMO, if you show up with such overwhelming force as to make any resistance obviously futile, your outcome would probably be better than if you show up with marginal force that the intransigent tenant thinks he has a chance of defeating n an armed conflict.
Maybe I just can't get past my bias of being a land owner who leases pastures to a rancher - and I sure as hell don't want him threatening me with violence if I ever have to tell him to get off my land.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:48 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
LINK
Some good info about Reid's interest in the land there...and it's not about some damn turtles.
Some good info about Reid's interest in the land there...and it's not about some damn turtles.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 4:58 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:49 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Maybe I just can't get past my bias of being a land owner who leases pastures to a rancher - and I sure as hell don't want him threatening me with violence if I ever have to tell him to get off my land
That's your problem, Its not and never has been a lease. The money was collected for improvements and such, but that's not what it was used for, was it? It was used to run every other rancher in that area out of business. A good way to avoid the conflict is to realize that the govt has plenty of land and deed the land to the Bundy family.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:09 pm to bencoleman
quote:
Its not and never has been a lease.
It's not and never has been Bundy's land outside of it being public land belonging to the People in common.
quote:
The money was collected for improvements and such, but that's not what it was used for, was it?
You know what? I could tell my tenant that I was going to use his rent to start a college fund for his grandchildren - and then use it to buy drugs instead. If he doesn't like it, and if he feels I'm in violation of our agreement, he can take his cows and go somewhere else. What he can't do is squat and threaten the land owner.
quote:
A good way to avoid the conflict is to realize that the govt has plenty of land and deed the land to the Bundy family.
It's public land held in trust by the government. If what's best for the People is to have that land simply deeded out to the Bundys, that would be great. Personally, I would rather see it auctioned off - perhaps giving Bundy some credits toward it - than a simple act of donation.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:19 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
You know what? I could tell my tenant that I was going to use his rent to start a college fund for his grandchildren
Once again for the Jerry's kid, it was not and never was rent/lease.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:23 pm to bencoleman
quote:I keep seeing this "fee for service" disinformation.
The money was collected for improvements and such, but that's not what it was used for, was it?
There was no agreement, duty, obligation, promise or anything by the federal government to improve the land or provide any services in exchange for Bundy using the federal property to feed his cattle.
Bundy has NEVER made any argument during any of his numerous court proceedings that the federal government failed to make any improvements on federal property or failed to provide any services to Bundy.
In short, the entire "the BLM broke their promises to make improvements" argument is meritless.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 5:31 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:32 pm to Salviati
You don't know shite dude. I have read your posts. You don't know what's in Bundy's head. Yet you have posted all kinds of nonsense about what he claims or thinks.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:37 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:The Wiki footnote link to that information is a local CBS article. LINK
It also said that Bundy's grazing acreage was cut by 90%
It mentions the reduction in cattle, but it does not mention a reduction in the size of the property. I have thoroughly researched this issue, and I have not found any credible source that states that the size of the property was reduced.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:42 pm to Salviati
quote:
It mentions the reduction in cattle, but it does not mention a reduction in the size of the property. I have thoroughly researched this issue, and I have not found any credible source that states that the size of the property was reduced
So you admit that you don't know shite about it.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:45 pm to Salviati
quote:
I keep seeing this "fee for service" disinformation.
I believe it was his daughter that made these claims but that's far from reliable.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:47 pm to bencoleman
quote:Yes, I do know what Bundy claims and what Bundy thinks about this issue.
I have read your posts. You don't know what's in Bundy's head. Yet you have posted all kinds of nonsense about what he claims or thinks.
I have read his claims and arguments in the court pleadings and memoranda signed by Bundy himself. I know what he thinks about the BLM, the federal government, the Endangered Species Act, the State of Nevada, and all of the other issues tied up in this mess. I know what his arguments are. I know what his claims are. I read them.
I have studied his arguments and the federal government's responses to his arguments. I have read the court's rulings on those arguments. I have read the appellate documents as well.
I have reviewed his statements to the media and the public. I know what Bundy thinks and claims about this issue.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:51 pm to Salviati
Since you know so much, have you found the original agreement that Bundy and the other ranchers had with the BLM and if so could you please post it.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 5:56 pm to Salviati
SO with your wealth of knowledge you came to TD to clarify the Bundy thoughts for the resident politards. Than ks
Posted on 4/15/14 at 6:02 pm to themunch
I agree with Bundy that there should be no such thing as "federal land". In fact, the federal government is such a massive failure on so many levels, I really can't say I blame him for saying to hell with it.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 6:13 pm to TigersforEver
I agree there is no reason for them to hold vast tracts of land. A lot of this land should be opened up for settlement not hoarded. Bring back the homestead act, there is plenty of land out west and in Alaska . The govt is not trying to save any turtles. That land isn't suitable for much in the way of development.
Page 6 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News