Waco style confrontation looms in Nevada

197 posts / 0 new
Last post
@Matt_McDonald_
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 04/03/2007 - 1:00pm
Waco style confrontation looms in Nevada

Supporters of Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy violated a “First Amendment Area” by staging a rally in support of Bundy, who earlier declared a “range war” against federal authorities in response to a land dispute that threatens to escalate into a Waco-style standoff.

Bundy is currently embroiled in a spat with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over his long standing refusal to acknowledge a 1993 modification to grazing rights on land that Bundy asserts has been in his family since 1870. On Saturday, hundreds of federal officials, aided by helicopters, low flying aircraft and hired cowboys, began rounding up Bundy’s cattle in northeastern Clark County.

The feds say the move is about enforcing the law and protecting the endangered desert tortoise, but the Bundy family says the spat represents a showdown between big government and American farmers.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/08/red-dawn-supporters-rally-defend...

Maine Guide
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/27/2014 - 8:45am
The Bundy family broke the

The Bundy family broke the law and is playing the martyr card.

And the reporting of the situation reflects the trendy trend toward glossed-over data and unproductive sensationalism. This matter has been 20 years in the making.

Roger Ek
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 11/18/2002 - 1:01am
The feds stole a number of

The feds stole a number of Wayne Hage's cattle and harassed his family for over 30 years. He won in court and the feds have not backed off. People are sick of this tyranny and all indications are that the feds are preparing for war against the American People. ( I capitalized People because our founders did in their documents and correspondence. ) The feds tell us what they want. We just need to listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

The United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I) met in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the conference report was entitled simply "Land." Here is an excerpt from the Preamble to that item:

"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...."

That is the core requirement of progressives; total government control and no self determination. It is the Marxist model. Maine is a target state and has been since the 1947 Bar Harbor Conference.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 33 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Ya but Maine Guide that doesn

Ya but Maine Guide that doesn't matter i.e. the reporting ,if it can be called that.
Remember , there is this cry about objective reporting ,"some time" !
When it doesn't meet the needs of the prevailing agenda.

Maine Guide
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/27/2014 - 8:45am
Whose is the "prevailing"

Whose is the "prevailing" agenda, the people, the feds, the state or the media? Or which hybrid of the above?

"...objective reporting ,"some time"" is meaningless and semantically void.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
It would make sense to tie

It would make sense to tie this thread to the Hage thread. I hate having to jump between one and the other to see who said what about which. There. I said it. I'm a hater.

My first encounter with the Hage story was about 9 years ago, in Tonapah, NV. Some group had posted a lot of fliers to alert an ignorant (traveling, in my case) public to the Hage's plight. The fliers read very closely to the story told in the Hage thread. The resident public (there was one casino at the Ramada, I think) had a slightly different view of things. They thought the Hages got a good deal on the fee simple ranch (8K acres), an excellent deal on the State's water rights (40k acres) that did flow toward them but a lousy deal on the Federal rights (800k acres) of which 760k acres grazing rights over a mountain top/ridge that included water but the water flowed away from them. They concluded the Hages bought a bad deal and then tried to redirect the water to fix it.

I'm not taking one side or the other but I did want to present the other side. Bruce Libby will be along shortly to present his Will Rogers-esque, cowboy poet truth.

ewv
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/19/2000 - 12:01am
A "good deal" from whom, and

A "good deal" from whom, and what does it have to do with the 30 years of harassment and bullying?

thejohnchapman
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 03/21/2000 - 1:01am
The judgment of the court.

The judgment of the court. Roger's characterization of it as a "win" against Unk Sugar is not incorrect.

Roger Ek
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 11/18/2002 - 1:01am
"The Bundy family broke the

"The Bundy family broke the law and is playing the martyr card."

They own their property. They own the water and grazing rights. If the government wants to take away what they own, the government must go through eminent domain and pay the family for what they own. They can't just declare that a species is threatened and seize thousands of acres. The ranchers are not threatening that tortoise. They never made turtle soup with one. Here is the list used by the environmental industry to harass landowners:

Endangered
Threatened
Species of concern
Species of special concern
Species of special significance
Species of interest
Critical habitat
Highly vulnerable species
Rare and Exemplary Natural Communities
"Keeping common species common."

All of these are simply buzzwords used to threaten landowners and befuddle gullible local officials. Most have no basis in science or law. For example, "highly vulnerable species" simply means game birds and animals in their lexicon. Local media employees take press releases by environmentalists and publish them as news. They are bogus.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 33 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
taxfoe wrong you are on that

taxfoe wrong you are on that one.
My only interest is going to be watching this thread , turned into another like the Conn. thread where
we will have thousand of words from constitutional experts ,anonymous bloggers etc. ( with cute names)!

Mike G
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 8 hours ago
Joined: 02/17/2000 - 1:01am
Bruce Libby will be along

Bruce Libby will be along shortly to present his Will Rogers-esque, cowboy poet truth.

Giddy-up-go-daddy giddy-up go

we will have thousand of words from constitutional experts ,anonymous bloggers etc. ( with cute names)!

Are you a constitutional expert Taxfoe, because I sure am not, maybe we should leave the deciferation of the law up to that bought and paid for taxman Justifer Roberts

Reaganite
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/21/2008 - 4:05pm
They own their property. They

They own their property. They own the water and grazing rights. If the government wants to take away what they own, the government must go through eminent domain and pay the family for what they own.

Wrong. They do not own the land. They do not own the water or grazing rights. The land is question is owned by Clark County and administered by the US Bureau of Land Management under contract with the county and state.

The land used to be open for grazing by the cattle of any area ranch. The BLM changed the regs, but this particular family refused to remove their cattle.

TheBlaze.com Link

Cliven Bundy, the last remaining rancher in the southern Nevada county, stands in defiance of a 2013 court order demanding that he remove his cattle from public land managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management.

The 67-year-old veteran rancher, who has compared the situation to similar confrontations with government officials in Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas, told TheBlaze that his family has used land in the 600,000-acre Gold Butte area since the late 1800s.

This is not another Waco or Ruby Ridge. This is a rancher who refuses to obey a court order.

Abacus
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 01/14/2011 - 12:21pm
You're the one who's wrong,

You're the one who's wrong, Reaganite, do some research. Look to E Wayne Hage and the court case TJC posted in another thread. They have grandfathered rights and the BLM changing the rules goes not nullify or change those rights.

Reaganite
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/21/2008 - 4:05pm
Actually, Abacus, you're the

Actually, Abacus, you're the one who is wrong. Do some research. The Hages claimed water rights. The Bundys do not have nor do they claim water rights on the land owned by Clark County. The ruling in the Hage case is tied to water rights and the Ditch Act, as well as precedent established by the SCOTUS.

The ruling also hinges on the arbitrary decision of the BLM to strip grazing and water rights specifically from the Hages. This differs from the Bundy case in that the decision to remove grazing permits applies to ALL ranchers. I'm fairly certain that the distinction between grazing rights in the Hage case and grazing permits in the Bundy case is also legally important.

This is not apples to apples and the decision posted by TJC does not necessarily support your conclusions.

The real issues here are:

1) Does the government have the right to take Bundy's cattle to remedy the trespass situation caused by the revocation of the Bundy's grazing permit?
2) Can the government, through military-style tactics and threats, lawfully intimidate the rancher and his family?
3) Can prior grazing permits be cancelled?
4) Are the creation of so called First Amendment Areas constitutional?

Abacus
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 01/14/2011 - 12:21pm
I'm 'fairly certain' you did

I'm 'fairly certain' you did not understand the Hage case then, since in that ruling was the rationale used pertaining to grandfathering and establishment of grazing rights. The federal government cannot just grab some land and put ranchers out of business without compensation, even if they did not own that land but had a vast history of utilization.

Reaganite
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/21/2008 - 4:05pm
I'm fairly certain that you

I'm fairly certain that you shouldn't be so certain. I am familiar with the Hage case. And I renewed my familiarity with the verdict this morning. The federal government didn't "grab" the land - they don't own it. They simply administer it for Clark County. I will grant you that the reason for the revocation of grazing permits - to save a tortoise - borders on the ridiculous. But it appears to be legal under federal law, at least until the law is challenged and struck down.

Another distinction is the difference between grazing rights and a grazing permit. Permits can be revoked. It happens every day. Once you've allowed a right to be regulated by permit, the right becomes diminished. Ask any gun owner.

Sorry, Abacus, but this case is not completely analogous to the Hage case. And, as with collector plates, past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
ewv asked: A "good deal" from

ewv asked: A "good deal" from whom, and what does it have to do with the 30 years of harassment and bullying?

Whomever he bought the ranch from. The local consensus was that he then brought his problems with the feds upon himself.
____________________________________________________________

Why Constitutional Sheriffs Matter . .

VIDEO

Sheriff Mack Responds Federal Terrorism at Bundy Ranch
____________________________________________________________________

He'll be there on Monday. If anyone would like to join him, nearby Mesquite would make a good base camp. It's pretty much a retirement community but it does have amenities. Chain shopping, chain restaurants, a few good restaurants and 4 (at least) typical, NV gateway casinos with lots of cheap rooms.

TMacKenzie
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: 04/27/2012 - 11:55am
Bundy does not own the land,

Bundy does not own the land, it is BLM land to which he had grazing rights. Years back, the grazing rights were modified to exclude certain areas required for a protected species of tortoise. Not expunged, simply modified to exclude some areas. The rancher refused to comply, continued to flout court orders. Now he has lost the entirety of his grazing rights, his son is in jail and he has called for a "range war" therefore escalating the situation. The government is not escalating the situation, the rancher is.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
GOOD VIDEO

GOOD VIDEO

Covers a lot of ground and reveals, among other things, the feds are euthanizing the tortoises because the place is overrun with them. That's just good gummint, dammit.

Gaffer
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 12/11/1999 - 1:01am
Why would anyone trust the

Why would anyone trust the government. Give me one instance when they did something quickly, fairly, honest and at an honest value. Post office- broke, Social Security- broke, Medicare- broke, Medicaid -broke, Obamacare - broke, feds - broke, Fannie Mae - broke, Freddie Mac -broke. Great track record. Have you noticed that those who support government have some tie or conflict of interest.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
Another Good Video

Another Good Video

Same reporter, Gary Franchi, with today's update. It's about 90% recap of yesterday's events. It includes a specific allegation as to a true motive behind the seizure. It also advises that hotel rooms in Mesquite are going fast . . the feds are booking them all and, if the intel is correct, they're planning on a two week stay.

Ugenetoo
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 16 min ago
Joined: 08/05/2011 - 12:32pm
That is just great.

That is just great.
Mesquite needs the boost.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid

Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch

SOURCE

Deleted from BLM.gov but reposted for posterity . .

“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle,” the document states . .

. . And journalist Marcus Stern with Reuters also reported that Sen. Reid was heavily involved in the deal as well.

“[Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert,” he wrote.
_______________________________________________

Oh, how I hope this is true.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
SOURCE

SOURCE

BLOCKBUSTER: Straight from a rancher's mouth

The BLM was going to sell the cattle at one of the smallest cattle markets in Utah. No cattle markets in Nevada would take the cattle without a properly signed brand inspection (which the BLM cannot obtain without Cliven Bundy's signature). The BLM paid the owner of the Utah cattle market $300,000 to do the sale ('R' Livestock Connection in Monroe, Utah, owned by one Scott G. Robbins, according to the Utah Business Entity Search). Utah Governor Herbert stepped in and forbid them from bringing the cattle into Utah without the legally required health and brand inspections (which again, require Bundy's signature) and that no feral cattle are allowed to be imported at all (per Utah statute) . .

. . From what I understand, Cliven Bundy owns both the Water Rights and Grazing Rights to all of the land where his cattle run. If Bundy failed to use them, the Grazing Rights would revert to the BLM and would be retired, while the Water Rights would revert to the State of Nevada, likely to be sold to the highest bidder (which would probably be a bidding war between mineral companies that are behind this action with the BLM and the City of Las Vegas which is thirsty for water and has had multiple attempts to buy water--through eminent domain from Utah farmers and ranchers--from Utah, which were all blocked by the Utah Legislature and Utah Governor Herbert). Chances are, the BLM has already filed a claim on the water rights so that they can sell to the highest bidder (instead of the state) and are trying to get the cattle off to show that Bundy cannot use the water beneficially (much like what the US Forest Service and BLM both tried to do to Wayne Hage).
______________________________________________________________

TORTOICIDE

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management announced it will kill hundreds of threatened desert tortoises it's been caring for at a Nevada conservation facility. The slaughter is being blamed on a lack of funds by the agency.
_____________________________________________________________

Second story has a non-working link to the original Washington Post article.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
VIDEO

VIDEO

Bundy's son on yesterday's confrontation; dovetails nicely with the rancher's comments, above. Water.

Bonus: How to defeat a Taser . . real cowboys don't writhe in agony!

TMacKenzie
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: 04/27/2012 - 11:55am
Bundy apparently has not made

Bundy apparently has not made any payment on his leased fee grazing and riparian rights since 1993, to the grand total of approximately $1,000,000. One of Bundy's publicly expressed rationales is "I'll pay the county but I won't pay. . .(the federal government.) BLM lease fee income is distributed to the tune of about 43.5% to county and local municipalities for roads, schools and infrastructure needs. (The rest goes to the federal government.) Therefore, Big Sky Big Wind Cheapskate has screwed the county and all who live in close proximity to him to the tune of $435,000 over the past 20 years. All of this over not accepting a "modified" grazing rights agreement that would keep his cattle out of vulnerable resource protection areas, in other words, fragile wetlands. Anyone who has lived in the West understands how fragile wetland areas can be in an arid environment, regardless of a frickin' tortoise or two, dead or alive. "He owned the riparian and grazing rights" to this land is a bunch of hog wash. Yes, in the West, one can own riparian rights that emanate well outside of the PRIVATE land one owns, taking into consideration the impact on the private land, a sort of domino effect. This is usually is described specifically in deed language. But it only pertains to the private land YOU own. If Bundy's riparian rights were bundled up into the grazing rights agreement on government land, he doesn't "own" them in perpetuity, they are leased, a very different story as to what he has a right to, on government land, not his own. If he doesn't pay the bill, or doesn't adhere to the performance agreement, these rights are expunged as to his rights to use taxpayer owned land. The government in this case has been way too patient, if anything. Just think if this happened in Maine, and he was a logger who had a "lease" to cut trees on federal or state land. . .and the government at some point said, you can't log in this particular area due to wildlife or let's say soil erosion conditions. . .but you can log everywhere else as you have done so for decades. The logger says FU. I am going to log anywhere I damn please because my family has lived adjacent to this land since the 1800s, damn any damage to the land and you can't change our lease agreement. I will keep logging and not pay you even as I am garnering a hefty profit off tax payer owned resources, year after year. Keyword: adjacent. Keyword: does not actually own the land, the tax payer does, and has the right to modify the agreement. Keyword: profit, but does not make payments for resources he collects for his own, thus screwing the taxpayer, both local and federal who must take up the burden he refuses to pay. This is not just a subsidy, this is stealing something you do not own, something that is owned by us all. Grazing and riparian rights, and profit, gained, for FREE. This is why I do not understand the Right Wing stance on this issue, which normally is all over people "gaming" the system, putting undue and unrighteous burden on fellow
taxpayers, criticizing people who "steal" taxpayer owned resources illegally or to extraordinary gain to themselves. A portion of this land, or at least it's revenue, actually belongs to the Maine taxpayers posting on this site. Are you not aggrieved in the least?

TMacKenzie
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: 04/27/2012 - 11:55am
Uh oh. Another "paragraphs

Uh oh. Another "paragraphs are your friend" posting trespass. Send in the snipers. . .

Rebecca
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
Joined: 05/07/2008 - 3:17pm
Looks like Connecticut is not

Looks like Connecticut is not the only State that's going to have a shooting war.

edit: It wouldn't be the first range war out there.
http://feraljundi.com/1388/history-the-range-wars-of-the-old-american-west/

TMacKenzie
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: 04/27/2012 - 11:55am
I wouldn't lick your chops,

I wouldn't lick your chops, just yet, on either state. People can get het up, but they ain't stupid. The act of picking up a gun, clarifies the mind wonderfully. Or, at least, it should.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
I appreciate your lengthy and

I appreciate your lengthy and un-paragraphed opinion. Who knows? You may be right. I've listened to quite a few interviews with the Bundy family. They don't come off as stupid or crooked. Who knows? They may be right. In the interview, above, the son states there were 50 supporters present at the time of the confrontation. I don't know the actual breakdown but I'll guess some, maybe many were locals. I suspect a few are the very ranchers who have been run out of business before him. Whatever the mix, all of them appeared to have accepted the risk of violence, up to and including gunfire.

Rebecca
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
Joined: 05/07/2008 - 3:17pm
ALWAYS follow the money. Can

ALWAYS follow the money.

Can't blame this on the Koch brothers.

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-...

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.

reidwatermarked.jpg

Corrupt Democratic Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) working with the Chinese gov’t to take land from hard-working Americans.

Deleted from BLM.gov but reposted for posterity by the Free Republic, the BLM document entitled “Cattle Trespass Impacts” directly states that Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development, more specifically the construction of “utility-scale solar power generation facilities” on “public lands.”

Back in 2012, the New American reported that Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firm planning to build a $5-billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nevada.
And journalist Marcus Stern with Reuters also reported that Sen. Reid was heavily involved in the deal as well.

“[Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert,” he wrote. “Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada.”

Pages

Log in to post comments