Quantcast

Who do you think is more in the wrong? Cliven Bundy of the BLM.

☆stillthe12c☆ 2014/04/15 23:49:56
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The Bundy Family have used the the land for a hundred and twenty years before the BLM took control in a land grab about a nonexistent issue. The BLM lost a suit to Bundy for 14.3 million dollars in total. They have never paid him a dime of it, yet they complain about the fact that they say he owes them money. The Bundy's owe them $300 thousand dollars in which the want 1 million.
This all started over what was being called an endangered species the desert tortoises which is actually flourishing in this area. The fact is the BLM has euthanized many of them saying they had to many of them and that some of them became sick. When you over populate a them in a small area you allow the disease ones to pass on the disease to others. So in short the BLM created a problem that nature would have taken care of if they had left them alone. That is my take on it. It is the same near where I live with the Mountain Lions. They allowed an area to be populated with people that forced the Lions into a small area and they windup having problems with them coming into contact with humans so they kill the lions. When they approved the building of the homes in the area I told my wife that is going to be a problem as I was aware of all the lions and dear that were in that area. the cattle never interfered with the tortoises in any way. The fact is they found that the population was very high in that area. Now They are calling the Bundy's criminals when they are the ones that are the actually criminals. This area should have been turned back to state control when they realized that there was no problem. But Harry son want to prosecute them. When it is him and his son that have tried to pull some crap to do a deal with the Chinese to use the land for solar power and line their pockets. This was state property. I forgot to mention that the desert tortoises was removed from the endangered list the year after it was put on it and the BLM moved in 3 years later. Here is the story

A family affair: Now Harry Reid’s son says Cliven Bundy ‘should be prosecuted’

Rory Reid, the son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, echoed his father’s comments on the battle between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, saying the latter “should be prosecuted.”

The younger Reid, a lawyer and Democratic politician who failed to win the Nevada governorship in 2010, made the remarks during a Monday interview on an NBC political talk show aired in Las Vegas.

Reid claimed Bundy “is not a victim and he’s not a hero. He’s been using that he doesn’t own for over 20 years and he didn’t pay. He broke the law. There are hundreds of ranchers throughout Nevada that conduct their profession honorably. There’s thousands of them throughout the country and when they have a dispute with the BLM they try to work it out.”

“We believe in a country in which we are subject to laws and you can’t just ignore the laws we don’t like,” he later continued. “I think clearly if state and local prosecutors look at this more closely, they’re going to find that he broke the law and he should be prosecuted.”

Reid’s remarks buttress those made by his father the same day in Reno, when the Democratic senator told reporters the standoff between the federal government over the legal ownership of Bundy’s ranch is “not over.” (RELATED: Reid warns Nevada cattle rancher who faced down feds: ‘It’s not over’)

Despite being a political powerhouse in Nevada, the Reid family remained silent on the controversy after BLM officers unexpectedly surrounded Bundy’s ranch last week. But now that the BLM has retreated, Harry and Rory Reid appear to be staging a small-scale PR campaign against the ranchers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/eve...





Read More: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/15/a-family-affair-...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Q 2014/04/16 01:09:41
    Bundy didn't build that.
    Q
    +12
    Bundy claims that his family has used the land in question since 1880 but the Nevada Constitution pre-dates this by 16 years. When Nevada became a state in 1864, its citizens gave up all claims to unappropriated federal land and codified this in the state’s Constitution. The Nevada Constitution states:

    “Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;
    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/co...
    http://www.reuters.com/articl...

    Bundy also claims that it his “right” to graze these BLM public lands. This is not the case. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 specifically states that the issuance of a grazing permit does not confer any right to graze or right to own the land. The Taylor Grazing Act is the granddaddy of the U.S. laws governing grazing on federal land. “Taylor” was a rancher and a congressman from Colorado, hardly someone to want government tyranny over ranching.

    So far as consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter, grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded, but the creation of a grazing dist...





    Bundy claims that his family has used the land in question since 1880 but the Nevada Constitution pre-dates this by 16 years. When Nevada became a state in 1864, its citizens gave up all claims to unappropriated federal land and codified this in the state’s Constitution. The Nevada Constitution states:

    “Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;
    http://www.leg.state.nv.us/co...
    http://www.reuters.com/articl...

    Bundy also claims that it his “right” to graze these BLM public lands. This is not the case. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 specifically states that the issuance of a grazing permit does not confer any right to graze or right to own the land. The Taylor Grazing Act is the granddaddy of the U.S. laws governing grazing on federal land. “Taylor” was a rancher and a congressman from Colorado, hardly someone to want government tyranny over ranching.

    So far as consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter, grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded, but the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.
    http://scholar.google.com/sch...
    http://www.blm.gov/flpma/FLPM...
    http://www.thewildlifenews.co...
    In 1948 the Bureau of Land Management was created by executive order of President Truman to replace the Grazing Service. The Service had been defunded in a dispute between the House and the U.S. Senate. The BLM has since been affirmed by law rather than a mere executive order. It is supposed to manage the public lands for multiple uses and for sustained production (“yield”) of renewable resources such as grass. As before, you need a grazing permit for cattle, sheep, goats, or horses to legally graze. It is a privilege, not a right, and this has been firmly stated by the U.S. courts.

    The simple truth of the matter is that Bundy is a freeloading, welfare rancher who has an inflated sense of entitlement. It also appears that he and his supporters’ use of threats and intimidation likely violated several federal laws. Inasmuch as they used (such as pointed) weapons to cause the government back down, it can be considered an armed insurrection.
    (more)

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • James ☆stillt... 2014/04/16 22:37:51
    James
    This was never state land. When Nevada achieved statehood and joined the Union in 1864, one of the conditions for statehood was that all unoccupied and unapportioned land was to be ceded to the Federal Government. This fact is codified in the Nevada State Constitution, so even if the Bundys were there 120 years ago, the state constitution predates their claim by quite a few years.
  • ☆stillt... James 2014/04/20 03:17:27
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    That is not true from what I have read. I think that I replied to this above.
  • James ☆stillt... 2014/04/20 03:52:23
    James
    +1
    I'm not hearing any argument about it ftom the state government
  • ☆stillt... James 2014/04/21 21:32:43
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    Actually it is happening now. Even during the action the Governor forbid the government from crossing state lines with the cattle.
  • James ☆stillt... 2014/04/21 22:23:46
    James
    +1
    The cattle and the land are two separate things.
  • ☆stillt... James 2014/04/27 20:23:27
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    There is a meeting that took place in Utah with the participation of 9 states including Nevada to kick the federal government off the land in their states.
  • James ☆stillt... 2014/04/27 20:32:35
    James
    More power to them I guess. For my activities on public land it makes me no difference if its state land, county land or federal land.
  • banzaibuckaroo 2014/04/16 06:15:21
    Undecided
    banzaibuckaroo
    +3
    I feel they should give that parcel of land in question back to the Moapa Paiute Indians, and make them ranch their lands, and diversify the economic opportunity for their people. After all, it was their land way before anyone settled in West.
  • Bobby Dale 2014/04/16 06:12:31
    It is all about control.
    Bobby Dale
    +3
    FOLLOW THE MONEY.
  • ☆stillt... Bobby Dale 2014/04/16 22:16:51
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    It is all about the money.
  • Carl 2014/04/16 04:48:54
    It is all about control.
    Carl
    +3
    Since the BLM still owes him 14.3 million,which they have not paid, just take the fee he owes out of the settlement.
  • ☆stillt... Carl 2014/04/16 22:18:56
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +2
    According to what I have found the Bundy;e owe the government $300 thousands dollars which they are now claiming 300 million. I guess this is fines and penalties. They are busy doing this all over the U.S.
  • Carl ☆stillt... 2014/04/17 18:29:25
    Carl
    +2
    Taken from the IRS playbook!!
  • banzaib... Carl 2014/04/18 05:48:28
    banzaibuckaroo
    +1
    can you show me what is this 14.3 million is all about?
  • Carl banzaib... 2014/04/18 17:05:49
    Carl
    +1
    Haven't found out what the suit was about yet.
  • banzaib... Carl 2014/04/20 03:22:49
    banzaibuckaroo
    +1
    you wrote it five posting above this.
  • Carl banzaib... 2014/04/21 16:17:13
    Carl
    +2
    Senior moment strikes again.
  • banzaib... Carl 2014/04/22 02:26:22
    banzaibuckaroo
    +2
    no prob :)
  • ☆stillt... Carl 2014/04/20 03:27:40
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +2
    The article about that has been removed from the internet. I saw the article myself. They won $14.1 million and the judge gave them another $200 thousand for another one of his findings.
  • NWDan 2014/04/16 04:31:05
    Bundy didn't build that.
    NWDan
    +4
    These are public lands that belong to me and every American that his cows are ripping up and taking massive dumps all over. F that. Buy your own land or pay the fees you cheap ass freeloading lowdown scumbag! Get the hell off my land!
  • Amasaman NWDan 2014/04/16 14:20:16
    Amasaman
    +1
    You think it's your land? Try riding a four wheeler down an old logging road, cutting down a tree for firewood, camp without a permit, hike, hunt or fish, pick flowers, or just be there with no real purpose other than looking around and you will see who tells you "You can't do that!"

    The idea of the government owning the land is so that nobody else can use it for anything. The land is off limits to you, me, and everyone else.
  • NWDan Amasaman 2014/04/17 01:27:36
    NWDan
    +1
    That is totally wrong. Almost all public lands are open to the public to use.... including grazing rights as in this situation. In many cases a fee is charged to help pay for maintaining those lands. Everyone who has ever gone to a national park knows that.
  • Amasaman NWDan 2014/04/17 13:25:37
    Amasaman
    +1
    National parks are completely different than undeveloped open range or forest land use. Tell me how that is "open" to the public? You must not have the US Forest Service Gestapo in your neck of the woods.
  • NWDan Amasaman 2014/04/17 18:44:08
    NWDan
    +1
    I have enjoyed our National Forests as well as our National Parks. They're a great place for camping, hiking and exploring.
  • Amasaman NWDan 2014/04/17 19:06:03
    Amasaman
    +1
    Until some bunny lover or tree hugger doesn't want you there, then what?
  • NWDan Amasaman 2014/04/19 03:37:17
    NWDan
    +1
    What are you talking about?
  • Amasaman NWDan 2014/04/20 12:34:43
    Amasaman
    +1
    I'm talking about the very few people who can influence the Feds into doing something that affects everybody else, like you and me, and keep us from enjoying those public lands that we all pay taxes to support.

    These very same people don't understand anything about the Pittman Robertson act, or anything about forestland management, yet will do anything to shut down the public lands to "preserve" them and not take into account they are for all to use.

    For instance, they get the Feds to pass roadless initiatives, stop logging operations, or deem an area off limits to hunting (or grazing) because of an endangered species or the manner in which we hunt. Then when there is a massive forest fire because of unhindered growth of underbrush, it cannot be controlled as there is no way to get there. They won't admit that their practices are actually unhealthy for the forests.

    This has been happening all over the US for quite some time, from small little localized restrictions on up to huge tracts of land. If you truly enjoy using those public lands as you do, educate yourself as to what goes on between the feds, the states (who are the one that are supposed to be controlling those lands,) and the people who use them and maybe you will better understand what Bundy is alluding to.
  • NWDan Amasaman 2014/04/20 16:07:34
    NWDan
    What a joke. Logging is good for the environment? Give me a break. Logging practices destroy the integrity of hillsides leading to runoff that removes topsoil and can create landslides like the deadly catastrophic slide up in Washington a month ago. In theory, logging companies replant what they log. In reality they don't. My state is marred by huge tracts of scraggly brush where a forest once stood but never will again. In the first one hundred years of this country, before we had the sense to protect our forests, we lost 1/4 of all our woodlands to deforestation. That's forest that will never come back. Fire is natural. Forest fires are good for the trees and health of the forest. It's only a problem for people who build too close to the forest and too far from municipalities. Our increased rates of forest fires is due primarily to climate change and idiots who start them.

    If anything, our regulations on our wildlands are way too lenient. There should be NO logging or grazing on public lands and much stricter regulations on cars, camping and hunting.
  • Amasaman NWDan 2014/04/21 13:25:50
    Amasaman
    +1
    I don't doubt there are instances where improper logging has caused damage in isolated areas, but if managed properly (and a vast majority of it is) there will be more trees, more wildlife, less disease and a more diverse forest then ever before.

    Stricter regulations on it's use? That is exactly the point I'm trying to make to you. Maybe you should stay home and not camp anymore. Call it self regulation.
  • NWDan Amasaman 2014/04/22 03:54:15
    NWDan
    Well you don't know anything about it. I do. I am in the middle of logging country. I see one to two dozen logging trucks on the road every single day. The forest immediately adjacent to my property is scheduled to be logged this summer. I am acutely familiar with the scarring of the land and loss of habitat that goes hand in hand with logging as I see it EVERYWHERE!
  • Amasaman NWDan 2014/04/22 15:04:30
    Amasaman
    +1
    I don't know anything about it? I am laughing at you!!!!

    I grew up and live where the primary industry is logging. I work for a company that sells logging equipment, I've been here for over 14 years. I install computer systems in the harvesters and go to the woods to instruct operators on how to program and use them. Prior to that I worked for an equipment manufacturer and travelled to demonstrate equipment. I attend both static and live logging equipment shows, I talk to loggers every day, in person and on the phone from all over the Great Lakes and northeastern US. Many of my friends are loggers or work in a related industry such as lumber mills, paper mills and truckers. I was a even logger for short time and worked for the Department of Natural Resources Forestry Division for a short time right out of high school. I originally went to school to be a wildlife biologist, which included classes on Forestry management.

    Do you understand that certain species of trees thrive after a selective cut?
    Do you understand that wildlife thrive after old growth forests are selectively cut?
    Do you know the best way to contain ash borers, or spruce bark beetles or other types of insects or diseases?
    Do you understand that certain species of trees regenerate faster from rhizomes than from see...




    I don't know anything about it? I am laughing at you!!!!

    I grew up and live where the primary industry is logging. I work for a company that sells logging equipment, I've been here for over 14 years. I install computer systems in the harvesters and go to the woods to instruct operators on how to program and use them. Prior to that I worked for an equipment manufacturer and travelled to demonstrate equipment. I attend both static and live logging equipment shows, I talk to loggers every day, in person and on the phone from all over the Great Lakes and northeastern US. Many of my friends are loggers or work in a related industry such as lumber mills, paper mills and truckers. I was a even logger for short time and worked for the Department of Natural Resources Forestry Division for a short time right out of high school. I originally went to school to be a wildlife biologist, which included classes on Forestry management.

    Do you understand that certain species of trees thrive after a selective cut?
    Do you understand that wildlife thrive after old growth forests are selectively cut?
    Do you know the best way to contain ash borers, or spruce bark beetles or other types of insects or diseases?
    Do you understand that certain species of trees regenerate faster from rhizomes than from seeds and will thrive after a clear cut?
    Do you really have any clue about silviculture?

    We had one logger that was working two US Forest Service tracts of land that were across the highway from each other. By rule, his equipment must be cleaned and pressure washed to remove all debris before it can enter a tract of land. This is to prevent the spread of non-native plants and avoid cross contamination of native plants and soils. He was not allowed to drive his equipment across the highway until he hauled it to his shop, cleaned and pressure washed it, and had it inspected by a USFS person. All of this cost him in excess of $10,000, just so he could go to the other side of the highway. Now does that make any sense to you? This is the type of nonsense we put up with around here.

    He vowed to never work a USFS job ever again.
    (more)
  • NWDan Amasaman 2014/04/23 02:18:04
    NWDan
    +1
    Western forests are a whole different situation than what you've got in the midwest. Our landscape all over the west coast, but particularly in the Northwest is scarred by clearcuts that will never grow back. The bottom line is that trees have adapted to live and thrive when they're left alone. I've heard all of the phoney baloney from the out of state logging interests to try to appease the locals that what they're doing is actually good for the forest. Of course they are 100% full of crap. They don't give a rat's ass about anything but the cash. And another thing, you are naive to be so dismissive of the seriousness of invasive species. They are probably the single biggest threat to our ecosystems today. They take over from native species at a ferocious rate and what they take over is never regained.
  • Amasaman NWDan 2014/04/23 13:12:46
    Amasaman
    +1
    Obviously you can't answer any of my questions, yet blame me on being naïve. Have a nice day!
  • ☆stillt... Amasaman 2014/04/20 03:29:56
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +1
    I think that in someplace it depends on what they are trying to hide.
  • Amasaman ☆stillt... 2014/04/20 12:36:18
    Amasaman
    +1
    Or whose palm there are greasing.
  • ☆stillt... NWDan 2014/04/16 22:20:16
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +1
    Actually that crap is improving the land.
  • NWDan ☆stillt... 2014/04/17 01:23:59
    NWDan
    +1
    improving it for what? It's a desert!
  • ☆stillt... NWDan 2014/04/20 03:32:08
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +1
    Exactly, one of the complaints of Bundy was they were doing nothing to make improvements.
  • jsavik 2014/04/16 04:03:19
    I think this is a overstep of the Federal government
    jsavik
    +3
    >>. The BLM lost a suit to Bundy for 14.3 million dollars in total. They have never paid him a dime

    People in goverenment think they are the law.
  • banzaib... jsavik 2014/04/16 06:21:43
    banzaibuckaroo
    +1
    They never went to court, because Bundy never acknowledge the BLM for the past 20 years. Personally, I feel they should give that parcel of land in question back to the Moapa Paiute Indians, and make them ranch their lands, and diversify the economic opportunity for their people. After all, it was their land way before anyone settled in West. If people are screaming about State rules, and jurisdiction of lands, then they should realize the Paiute Indians were there way before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/22 04:59:24

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals