Range Wars with the Federal Government

sudden valley gunner · Apr 9, 2014

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/nevada-rancher-threatens-range-war-feds/story?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".

OC for ME · Apr 9, 2014

BLM wants a Waco under their belt it seems. Why should they be left out.

OC for ME · Apr 9, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
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/nevada-rancher-threatens-range-war-feds/story?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.

Primus · Apr 9, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
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/nevada-rancher-threatens-range-war-feds/story?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

sudden valley gunner · Apr 9, 2014

OC for ME said:
BLM wants a Waco under their belt it seems. Why should they be left out.

I was thinking that very same thing.

OC for ME said:
OK, I'll be nice, he can use my little piece of NV.

sudden valley gunner · Apr 9, 2014

Primus said:
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.......?

Primus · Apr 9, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
.......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

OC for ME · Apr 9, 2014

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.

sudden valley gunner · Apr 9, 2014

Primus said:
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.

OC for ME · Apr 9, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
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

Primus · Apr 9, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
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

OC for ME · Apr 9, 2014

Primus said:
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.

Primus · Apr 9, 2014

OC for ME said:
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

OC for ME · Apr 9, 2014

Primus said:
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.

OC for ME · Apr 9, 2014

OC for ME said:
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.

arentol · Apr 9, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
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/nevada-rancher-threatens-range-war-feds/story?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.

stealthyeliminator · Apr 9, 2014

arentol said:
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/n3/611...-senator-slam-govt-agency-for-seizing-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-Br...-in-cattle-roundup-controversy-254482011.html

**** the BLM.

sudden valley gunner · Apr 9, 2014

Primus said:
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?

sudden valley gunner · Apr 9, 2014

arentol said:
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.

davidmcbeth · Apr 9, 2014

Well at least they did not go full retard and have snipers like Ruby Ridge ... oh, wait .. snap, they did.

Range Wars with the Federal Government

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned