re: Bundy/BLM: Sheriff: "Feds Strategizing for Raid"

quote:

---

Once again for the Jerry's kid

---

What is Bundy's title to?

quote:

---

Doesn't compute.

---

It makes perfect sense.

quote:

---

Yes, the clear constitutional rights of the federal government control over Bundy's illusory rights.

---

The best thing the feds can do now is sit back and let Bundy and his supporters run their mouths and show everybody how batshit crazy they are. A lot of people are going to be embarrassed that they annointed these guys as heroes before doing their due diligence.

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.

---

Hoping that bloodshed will awaken a sleeping giant of discontent is sacrificing lives of men who don't stand a chance for a cause that will be forgotten within a two week news cycle. All the false bravado regarding death is from people who never have witnessed it. I have and it ain't that great.

Off topic a bit, but when did Texas become the darling of all that is right, or how it should be? It's not, and in 10 years it will be more like having California as a neighbor when minority voters undo all that Don't Mess with Texas faux pride.

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?

quote:

---

Jim, what's your take on this? I see myself leaning more Bundy.

---

I think there are a lot of legit land-use issues. With some goodwill and good faith on both sides, they can usually be worked out, and you don't hear about those. You only hear about the ones where the unwieldy, bureaucratic machine runs up against some jackass. I'll bet you there are other guys in that area who had their issues with the BLM and worked them out by having a sit down with the district ranger over a cup of coffee at the local diner-or a glass of milk or whatever, since they're mostly Mormons out there.

Where I am, I'm surrounded by national forest, and we have never, ever had anything approaching this mess in Nevada. The bureaucrats out there are no different than the ones running things here, so why the difference?

As for who can more effectively manage the lands, federal or local, there's not a clear answer. The feds do tend to use a blunt, one size fits all approach that doesn't always work well in every application, and they often are not sensitive to local concerns. OTOH, the locals can be blinded to the big picture by their parochial interests. The reason there's a big national forest in North and Central Louisiana is because by the 1920's, all the trees had been clearcut and there was literally nothing left. The locals and the state weren't doing anything about it, so the United States bought all that land for pennies an acre and replanted it. Now it's a source of sustainable timber harvest and wildlife habitat.

Getting back to the Mormon issue, if Bundy is a Mormon, there could be some festering resentment there as well. Some of those rural Mormons are kind of touchy, still, over their ancestors having been run out of Illinois and Missouri. The urban and suburban ones, not so much, but the rural ones are not nearly as assimilated to the larger culture.

TL, DR, I'm sure, but I'm trying to avoid getting ready for work

quote:

---

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?

---

Well, the agencies have comment periods for all this stuff and they're required by law to take local input into consideration. And, you have your Congresscritters who should grill the director when he comes to them with his budget requests. That, too, is a delicate balance.

It's nice to say locals should control their local resources, and there should be a lot of input from them. And in many cases, maybe even most, they should have the ultimate say-so. OTOH, a lot of these issues are way too big for one parish/county/state to realistically deal with.

Agreed. But The State has to account for people who are "off the grid". They can't take a one size fits all approach. They have to enforce the Rule Of Law and yet exercise reason and proportionality. And these people are not crazed or homicidal or a threat to their neighbors. They are just essentially defiant. And while there are numerous facts against them, there are also numerous arguments in their favor.

Maybe The State shouldn't win every battle. Maybe the should wait until the stubborn and free old geezer passes and deal with his heirs.