re: 300+ Nevada ranchers and militia stage an armed insurrection against the USBLM

My question still stands:

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:

---

eta you did get the part where its a desert right??? as in fricking HUNDREDS OF MILES OF NOTHING.

what harm was bundy doing by letting his cows out for a walk?

i'd love for a math major to crunch some numbers on the odds of a cow not only encountering one of these alleged turtles but also the odds of stepping on it.

---

They didn't go and take the cows from Bundy's land, they caught them on the property. Trespassing is trespassing.

My family owns some acreage in south Louisiana, and a lot of it is pretty useless. That doesn't give an old man a right let his cows wander around on it without our permission. Even if he had that permission before.

And as you said, its a desert. Preventing someone with no ownership interest from being the main beneficiary of the limited vegetation available seems like a reasonable enough goal for the government.

quote:

---

dude the government has already locked up close to 85% of the land in nevada now. do they really need to evict the ranchers from the little scraps they have left?

---

Is there no where else for them to go? Is there land with lower grazing fees? Where have all the other ranchers moved to? Apparently he is the last of 100 ranchers or so to stay.

quote:

---

Where have all the other ranchers moved to?

---

dude they didn't move. they quit. gave up ranching. just what the government wants.

which question? you've asked about 30.

You can find them.

quote:

---

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:

---

Bundy's stance is that there is a Constitutional question as to whether the federal government has a right to jurisdiction over the land. He doesn't believe it is the fedgov's position, rather the state's or the county's. Rightly or wrongly. Obviously the courts so far haven't ruled on his side.

The other issue is who is enforcing. Bundy doesn't believe it is the fed's job to enforce the grazing laws in Nevada, but the local sheriff's. He doesn't believe the federal government has the constitutional power to do so. Thus his comments that "they don't exist" in this particular situation. His argument is purely Constitutional in nature.

The courts have not ruled in favor of his arguments, even though I personally think there is some merit to them - even if a just a little.

Aside from that, we have the strongarm tactics obviously used to force ranchers out of there livelihoods - for what most people now see as a special interest project. That is what is so repulsive. In 1993, there was a conscious effort by the fedgov to force ranchers out of the area by limiting their herds. The fact that Bundy is the only one left standing is evidence that the ranchers got a pretty raw deal - a deal that wasn't economically sustainable for them. Add in the fact that the desert tortoise was obviously just another card in the fedgov's hand to be used as a strongarm tactic.

I think it is pretty evident to most people that the ranchers were strongarmed, perhaps legally. But with the growing frustrations of overreach by the fedgov this incident has taken on a much bigger significance for a lot of people.

Cowboys vs. rich politicians and an overreaching federal government forcing them from their livelihoods. It doesn't look good, regardless of legal soundness.

The ends don't justify the means.

quote:

---

Bundy's stance is that there is a Constitutional question as to whether the federal government has a right to jurisdiction over the land. He doesn't believe it is the fedgov's position, rather the state's or the county's. Rightly or wrongly. Obviously the courts so far haven't ruled on his side.

The other issue is who is enforcing. Bundy doesn't believe it is the fed's job to enforce the grazing laws in Nevada, but the local sheriff's. He doesn't believe the federal government has the constitutional power to do so. Thus his comments that "they don't exist" in this particular situation. His argument is purely Constitutional in nature.

The courts have not ruled in favor of his arguments, even though I personally think there is some merit to them - even if a just a little.

Aside from that, we have the strongarm tactics obviously used to force ranchers out of there livelihoods - for what most people now see as a special interest project. That is what is so repulsive. In 1993, there was a conscious effort by the fedgov to force ranchers out of the area by limiting their herds. The fact that Bundy is the only one left standing is evidence that the ranchers got a pretty raw deal - a deal that wasn't economically sustainable for them. Add in the fact that the desert tortoise was obviously just another card in the fedgov's hand to be used as a strongarm tactic.

I think it is pretty evident to most people that the ranchers were strongarmed, perhaps legally. But with the growing frustrations of overreach by the fedgov this incident has taken on a much bigger significance for a lot of people.

Cowboys vs. rich politicians and an overreaching federal government forcing them from their livelihoods. It doesn't look good, regardless of legal soundness.

The ends don't justify the means.

---

Great post Mohican.

Bottom line, the federal government is out of control. Should the federal government have a reasonable interest in owning 85% of state land (especially when it's not designated as a national park)? Don't even get me started on Harry Reid's conflict of interest in this situation.

We need to burn this country to the ground.

Bundy owes the government about $1mil (which includes fees and fines). The federal response is to appear with military-grade weapons and cease his property . Al Sharpton owes 1.5mil in back taxes. He gets invited to the White House.

Hyperbole, I know. But it's indicative of unbalanced response to groups that are perceived as contrary (read: conservative) to this administration's philosophy.