Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 69

Thread: Range Wars with the Federal Government

  1. #1
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Range Wars with the Federal Government

    Man has been defying Federal intervention for 20 years.


    FUQ- "They have my cattle and now they have one of my boys. Range War begins tomorrow."
    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nevad...ry?id=23225314

    Raises so many questions. Why is the Feds involving itself in the State of Nevada? (Why do they own so much of a "State"?) Why did the feds wait 20 years? Are they itching for to flex their might to it's subjects? Clive also raises questions, he talks about rights but does he have rights to use "common property"? Wouldn't that mean he would need permission from everyone else who owns that property? Is this a case that shows another side of "the tragedy of the commons".
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    BLM wants a Waco under their belt it seems. Why should they be left out.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Man has been defying Federal intervention for 20 years.


    FUQ- "They have my cattle and now they have one of my boys. Range War begins tomorrow."
    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nevad...ry?id=23225314

    Raises so many questions. Why is the Feds involving itself in the State of Nevada? (Why do they own so much of a "State"?) Why did the feds wait 20 years? Are they itching for to flex their might to it's subjects? Clive also raises questions, he talks about rights but does he have rights to use "common property"? Wouldn't that mean he would need permission from everyone else who owns that property? Is this a case that shows another side of "the tragedy of the commons".
    OK, I'll be nice, he can use my little piece of NV.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Man has been defying Federal intervention for 20 years.


    FUQ- "They have my cattle and now they have one of my boys. Range War begins tomorrow."
    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nevad...ry?id=23225314

    Raises so many questions. Why is the Feds involving itself in the State of Nevada? (Why do they own so much of a "State"?) Why did the feds wait 20 years? Are they itching for to flex their might to it's subjects? Clive also raises questions, he talks about rights but does he have rights to use "common property"? Wouldn't that mean he would need permission from everyone else who owns that property? Is this a case that shows another side of "the tragedy of the commons".
    Its bureau of land management land. They removed cattle from from public land because he refused to.

    The NCA isn't even backing him up.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    BLM wants a Waco under their belt it seems. Why should they be left out.
    I was thinking that very same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    OK, I'll be nice, he can use my little piece of NV.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Its bureau of land management land. They removed cattle from from public land because he refused to.

    The NCA isn't even backing him up.
    .......and.......?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    .......and.......?
    Not really sure how that equates to Waco. Or anything else for that matter. He doesn't own the land. So he has no "right" to the land. So if the agency or people in control of said land tell him to beat it..... well he has to beat it. He decides he doesn't want to. So they make his cattle beat it for him. Not sure what the outrage is about.

    If there's a public park should he be able to graze cattle there too? If the agency that runs said park tells him to beat it is that an outrage?

    And I mentioned the other cattle owners because if your the ONLY dude who has an issue.... maybe that tells you something.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    More importantly, beyond the trials and tribulations of the rancher, what on earth is BLM doing with armed agents. Where is a US Marshal, or local sheriff? I suspect that the BLM land falls within a NV county.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Not really sure how that equates to Waco. Or anything else for that matter. He doesn't own the land. So he has no "right" to the land. So if the agency or people in control of said land tell him to beat it..... well he has to beat it. He decides he doesn't want to. So they make his cattle beat it for him. Not sure what the outrage is about.

    If there's a public park should he be able to graze cattle there too? If the agency that runs said park tells him to beat it is that an outrage?

    And I mentioned the other cattle owners because if your the ONLY dude who has an issue.... maybe that tells you something.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

    Well I didn't mention Waco in my OP. But to answer your question, it looks like the feds are looking for an armed conflict to some.

    Like I said in my OP, he seems to have a queer grasp of rights. That doesn't negate the fact that if it has been set aside as grazing lands for ranchers than they do have the "right" to use it.

    So the community or society doesn't own the land, if the government can tell you to "beat it". If that is the case why should they pay for it?

    Or maybe other cattle owners are more scared of government and its violence.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Well I didn't mention Waco in my OP. But to answer your question, it looks like the feds are looking for an armed conflict to some.

    Like I said in my OP, he seems to have a queer grasp of rights. That doesn't negate the fact that if it has been set aside as grazing lands for ranchers than they do have the "right" to use it.

    So the community or society doesn't own the land, if the government can tell you to "beat it". If that is the case why should they pay for it?

    Or maybe other cattle owners are more scared of government and its violence.
    This is a most intriguing observation, or contention. It does have merit.

    Additionally, photos of snipers could, maybe, be construed to, possibly, indicate that there might be some possible need, on the part of the BLM, to want to shoot someone.

    +1
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Well I didn't mention Waco in my OP. But to answer your question, it looks like the feds are looking for an armed conflict to some.

    Like I said in my OP, he seems to have a queer grasp of rights. That doesn't negate the fact that if it has been set aside as grazing lands for ranchers than they do have the "right" to use it.

    So the community or society doesn't own the land, if the government can tell you to "beat it". If that is the case why should they pay for it?

    Or maybe other cattle owners are more scared of government and its violence.
    Apparently its not "lands set aside for grazing". It appears to be land set aside and one of things allowed there is grazing of cattle. Key word.... allowed.

    I apologize if it seemed I was assigning the Waco comment to you, I wasn't. I was just commenting in general about the the armed agents "wanting" a fight.

    To entertain that notion is ludicrous.

    And sure maybe they are afraid of the government and its violence........ or they are smart enough to understand they are using land that's NOT theirs and they have to follow the rules sent there. Couldn't be that right?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Apparently its not "lands set aside for grazing". It appears to be land set aside and one of things allowed there is grazing of cattle. Key word.... allowed.

    I apologize if it seemed I was assigning the Waco comment to you, I wasn't. I was just commenting in general about the the armed agents "wanting" a fight.

    To entertain that notion is ludicrous.

    And sure maybe they are afraid of the government and its violence........ or they are smart enough to understand they are using land that's NOT theirs and they have to follow the rules sent there. Couldn't be that right?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Ludicrous? That is your opinion. The documented facts of the BLM response seem to indicate otherwise.....to me anyway. If the dude refuses, arrest him before the cattle is removed. Don't need snipers for that.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Ludicrous? That is your opinion. The documented facts of the BLM response seem to indicate otherwise.....to me anyway. If the dude refuses, arrest him before the cattle is removed. Don't need snipers for that.
    I agree. Ludicrous is my opinion. No more no less.

    Do you have photos of said "sniper"? I don't recall the article even citing a source other then someone "thought they saw snipers".

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I agree. Ludicrous is my opinion. No more no less.

    Do you have photos of said "sniper"? I don't recall the article even citing a source other then someone "thought they saw snipers".

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Oops, no photos, I retract. Only reports from eye witnesses who claim that they saw snipers.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Oops, no photos, I retract. Only reports from eye witnesses who claim that they saw snipers.
    The caption said "training photo."

    Score one for the turtle advocates.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Man has been defying Federal intervention for 20 years.


    FUQ- "They have my cattle and now they have one of my boys. Range War begins tomorrow."
    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/nevad...ry?id=23225314

    Raises so many questions. Why is the Feds involving itself in the State of Nevada? (Why do they own so much of a "State"?) Why did the feds wait 20 years? Are they itching for to flex their might to it's subjects? Clive also raises questions, he talks about rights but does he have rights to use "common property"? Wouldn't that mean he would need permission from everyone else who owns that property? Is this a case that shows another side of "the tragedy of the commons".
    They are involved because it is federal land, and more importantly because those tortoises genuinely need protecting. Not really sure why you would even ask why they own so much of the state. Clearly they and Nevada recognize that they do, that should be sufficient. I don't know the specifics of why they waited 20 years, but perhaps the more important question is why did the rancher not resolve the situation given he had 20 years to do so? Sounds like they are itching to save tortoises. If Clive's family has been ranching on that land since the 1870's then why doesn't he own it? If he has been using public land all this time then seems like he hasn't been taking much responsibility for his own well being. If I relied on a piece of land for my living I would damn sure try to make sure I had pure title to it.

  17. #17
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    They are involved because it is federal land, and more importantly because those tortoises genuinely need protecting. Not really sure why you would even ask why they own so much of the state. Clearly they and Nevada recognize that they do, that should be sufficient. I don't know the specifics of why they waited 20 years, but perhaps the more important question is why did the rancher not resolve the situation given he had 20 years to do so? Sounds like they are itching to save tortoises. If Clive's family has been ranching on that land since the 1870's then why doesn't he own it? If he has been using public land all this time then seems like he hasn't been taking much responsibility for his own well being. If I relied on a piece of land for my living I would damn sure try to make sure I had pure title to it.
    To be so sure of your position on natural progression I'm curious as to why you believe we need to fight evolution by preventing a species which fails to sustain itself from perishing. What works the best is what's moral, unless we're dealing with tortoises. Then we have to save them, even though they don't "work"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA

    Primus - the feds own the land because they've purchased it? Or is it just because "they say so?"

    With regard to BLM's "First Amendment Areas"
    "Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval pointed earlier to what he called “an atmosphere of intimidation,” resulting from the roundup and said he believed constitutional rights were being trampled." - http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/6115...eizing-cattle/
    "Most disturbing to me is the BLM's establishment of a 'First Amendment Area' that tramples upon Nevadans' fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution.

    To that end, I have advised the BLM that such conduct is offensive to me and countless others and that the 'First Amendment Area' should be dismantled immediately."
    "No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans." - Gov. Brian Sandoval http://www.jrn.com/ktnv/news/Gov-Bri...254482011.html

    **** the BLM.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 04-09-2014 at 10:42 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Apparently its not "lands set aside for grazing". It appears to be land set aside and one of things allowed there is grazing of cattle. Key word.... allowed.

    I apologize if it seemed I was assigning the Waco comment to you, I wasn't. I was just commenting in general about the the armed agents "wanting" a fight.

    To entertain that notion is ludicrous.

    And sure maybe they are afraid of the government and its violence........ or they are smart enough to understand they are using land that's NOT theirs and they have to follow the rules sent there. Couldn't be that right?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    It was lands set aside for grazing until an agency decided to change it......

    So you do believe the government isn't society or the community?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    They are involved because it is federal land, and more importantly because those tortoises genuinely need protecting. Not really sure why you would even ask why they own so much of the state. Clearly they and Nevada recognize that they do, that should be sufficient. I don't know the specifics of why they waited 20 years, but perhaps the more important question is why did the rancher not resolve the situation given he had 20 years to do so? Sounds like they are itching to save tortoises. If Clive's family has been ranching on that land since the 1870's then why doesn't he own it? If he has been using public land all this time then seems like he hasn't been taking much responsibility for his own well being. If I relied on a piece of land for my living I would damn sure try to make sure I had pure title to it.

    Follow the discussion I posed those questions and have been discussing it with Primus.

    I think he should own much of it, hence my comments about the tragedy of the commons. I bet if the lands were private and not "public" private individuals would have a vested interest in taking care of the land and whats on it.

    Public grazing is what led to much of the degradation of the prairies. Something that would have been less likely to happen if it was privately owned.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Well at least they did not go full retard and have snipers like Ruby Ridge ... oh, wait .. snap, they did.

  21. #21
    Regular Member MurrayRothbard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    70
    Here's a post from the rancher's daughter:

    I have had people ask me to explain my dad's stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it s in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights. Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repaires and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these money's against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they're own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren't doing their job. He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes. In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn't work, they used the indangered species card. You've already heard about the desert tortis. Well that didn't work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now their desperate. It's come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything their doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America. Now you may be saying," how sad, but what does this have to do with me?" Well, I'll tell you. They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again. Next, it's Utah's turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.

    Then there's the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn't paid them, those cattle do belong to him. Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even exsisted. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad's signature on it. They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Aucion and sell them. All with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are?
    Well, this is it in a nut shell. Thanks"
    Last edited by MurrayRothbard; 04-10-2014 at 11:57 AM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Interesting so he bought the rights to it.

    Thanks for the info Murray.

    Too bad the Feds feel the need to own most of NV and the ranchers could own their own land.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member MurrayRothbard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Interesting so he bought the rights to it.

    Thanks for the info Murray.

    Too bad the Feds feel the need to own most of NV and the ranchers could own their own land.
    yeah once I read that, assuming it's true, I'm not sure how in the world the gov't feels it has the right to do this.

  24. #24

  25. #25
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Apparently its not "lands set aside for grazing". It appears to be land set aside and one of things allowed there is grazing of cattle. Key word.... allowed.

    I apologize if it seemed I was assigning the Waco comment to you, I wasn't. I was just commenting in general about the the armed agents "wanting" a fight.

    To entertain that notion is ludicrous.

    And sure maybe they are afraid of the government and its violence........ or they are smart enough to understand they are using land that's NOT theirs and they have to follow the rules sent there. Couldn't be that right?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    So that song I learned when I was a child "This land is your land...this land is my land.." isn't true?

    https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...0land%20lyrics

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •